In this issue of The Journal of Family Practice, Dr. Wayne Jonas explains his model for Advanced Primary Care (see page 493). The figure he uses to illustrate Advanced Primary Care is compelling, and the effectiveness of this model of health care is supported by a great deal of research and evaluation over the past 20 years. Let me provide some historical context.

The idea that healing requires more than curative, biology-based medical care dates back to Greek mythology. Asclepius, the god of medicine, had 5 daughters, Hygeia (the goddess of good health and hygiene), Iaso (cures and remedies), Aceso (healing wounds), Aegle (radiant good health), and Panacea (cures).¹ Clearly, the Greeks believed that integrative care is essential for maintaining good health!

Modern, scientific medicine is a relatively recent development in human history. Other traditions of healing such as acupuncture and herbal medicines are actually much older than mainstream Western medicine. But they come together in family medicine—a specialty founded on the principles of whole person, whole family, and whole community care.

We can no longer go “halfway” into whole-person care.

The first modern model of comprehensive care, the patient-centered medical home (PCMH), was introduced by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 1967. This idea caught on widely and was institutionalized by the National Committee for Quality Assurance in 2008 with PCMH certification.

Advanced Primary Care is the latest and best rendition of comprehensive primary health care. Funding this model through our current payment mechanisms, however, has been difficult because of the need to support social and behavioral interventions in addition to medical care—areas of care not traditionally paid for by medical premiums. In 2011, CMS collaborated with private insurers in a national demonstration project to test the financial feasibility of implementing Advanced Primary Care. Some organizations have been highly successful; others not as much.

We can no longer go “halfway” into whole-person care. The COVID-19 pandemic has put a spotlight on our need to transform payment models away from fee-for-service to reimbursement for whole person primary care. Our nation’s health and the viability of our health care system depend on it. 

PS: I recommend reading Dr. Jonas’ book, How Healing Works, which provides a scientific rationale for the application of whole-person care to healing.
 

In this issue of The Journal of Family Practice, Dr. Wayne Jonas explains his model for Advanced Primary Care (see page 493). The figure he uses to illustrate Advanced Primary Care is compelling, and the effectiveness of this model of health care is supported by a great deal of research and evaluation over the past 20 years. Let me provide some historical context.

The idea that healing requires more than curative, biology-based medical care dates back to Greek mythology. Asclepius, the god of medicine, had 5 daughters, Hygeia (the goddess of good health and hygiene), Iaso (cures and remedies), Aceso (healing wounds), Aegle (radiant good health), and Panacea (cures).¹ Clearly, the Greeks believed that integrative care is essential for maintaining good health!

Modern, scientific medicine is a relatively recent development in human history. Other traditions of healing such as acupuncture and herbal medicines are actually much older than mainstream Western medicine. But they come together in family medicine—a specialty founded on the principles of whole person, whole family, and whole community care.

We can no longer go “halfway” into whole-person care.

The first modern model of comprehensive care, the patient-centered medical home (PCMH), was introduced by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 1967. This idea caught on widely and was institutionalized by the National Committee for Quality Assurance in 2008 with PCMH certification.

Advanced Primary Care is the latest and best rendition of comprehensive primary health care. Funding this model through our current payment mechanisms, however, has been difficult because of the need to support social and behavioral interventions in addition to medical care—areas of care not traditionally paid for by medical premiums. In 2011, CMS collaborated with private insurers in a national demonstration project to test the financial feasibility of implementing Advanced Primary Care. Some organizations have been highly successful; others not as much.

We can no longer go “halfway” into whole-person care. The COVID-19 pandemic has put a spotlight on our need to transform payment models away from fee-for-service to reimbursement for whole person primary care. Our nation’s health and the viability of our health care system depend on it. 

PS: I recommend reading Dr. Jonas’ book, How Healing Works, which provides a scientific rationale for the application of whole-person care to healing.
 

In this issue of The Journal of Family Practice, Dr. Wayne Jonas explains his model for Advanced Primary Care (see page 493). The figure he uses to illustrate Advanced Primary Care is compelling, and the effectiveness of this model of health care is supported by a great deal of research and evaluation over the past 20 years. Let me provide some historical context.

The idea that healing requires more than curative, biology-based medical care dates back to Greek mythology. Asclepius, the god of medicine, had 5 daughters, Hygeia (the goddess of good health and hygiene), Iaso (cures and remedies), Aceso (healing wounds), Aegle (radiant good health), and Panacea (cures).¹ Clearly, the Greeks believed that integrative care is essential for maintaining good health!

Modern, scientific medicine is a relatively recent development in human history. Other traditions of healing such as acupuncture and herbal medicines are actually much older than mainstream Western medicine. But they come together in family medicine—a specialty founded on the principles of whole person, whole family, and whole community care.

We can no longer go “halfway” into whole-person care.

The first modern model of comprehensive care, the patient-centered medical home (PCMH), was introduced by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 1967. This idea caught on widely and was institutionalized by the National Committee for Quality Assurance in 2008 with PCMH certification.

Advanced Primary Care is the latest and best rendition of comprehensive primary health care. Funding this model through our current payment mechanisms, however, has been difficult because of the need to support social and behavioral interventions in addition to medical care—areas of care not traditionally paid for by medical premiums. In 2011, CMS collaborated with private insurers in a national demonstration project to test the financial feasibility of implementing Advanced Primary Care. Some organizations have been highly successful; others not as much.

We can no longer go “halfway” into whole-person care. The COVID-19 pandemic has put a spotlight on our need to transform payment models away from fee-for-service to reimbursement for whole person primary care. Our nation’s health and the viability of our health care system depend on it. 

PS: I recommend reading Dr. Jonas’ book, How Healing Works, which provides a scientific rationale for the application of whole-person care to healing.
 

THE CASE

A 17-year-old White girl with no known past medical history presented to the emergency department (ED) with complaints of abdominal pain and pruritus. The abdominal pain had started 9 days prior and lasted for 3 days. One day after resolution, she developed bilateral lower extremity itching, which was not relieved with loratadine.

Review of systems included dark urine and yellow eyes noted for several days. The patient denied nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, constipation, fevers, chills, arthralgias, recent illness, travel, or sick contacts. Immunizations were up to date. The patient had no history of surgery or liver disease and no pertinent family history. Her current medications included ethinyl estradiol/norethindrone acetate for birth control and minocycline for acne vulgaris. She had been taking the latter medication for 2 years. No additional medications were noted, including vitamins, over-the-counter medications, or supplements. She denied smoking and alcohol or recreational drug use.

In the ED, the patient had normal vital signs. Physical exam findings included bilateral scleral icterus and scattered skin excoriations on the hands, arms, back of the neck, and feet. At the time of hospital admission, the patient’s minocycline and birth control were held under the initial presumption that one or both might be contributing to her presentation.

Pertinent laboratory findings included aspartate transaminase (AST), 828 U/L (normal range, 2-40 U/L); alanine aminotransferase (ALT), 784 U/L (normal range, 3-30 U/L); lactic acid dehydrogenase, 520 U/L (normal range, 140-280 U/L); alkaline phosphatase, 119 U/L (normal range, 44-147 U/L); total bilirubin, 1.9 µmol/L (normal range, 2-18 µmol/L); and direct bilirubin, 1.3 µmol/L (normal range, 0-4 µmol/L). Baseline liver function test results (prior to admission) were unknown. Results of a coagulation panel, complete blood count, basic metabolic panel, amylase, lipase, urine toxicology, and urinalysis all were within normal limits.

Ultrasound of the abdomen revealed a normal abdomen, liver, pancreas, gallbladder, and common bile duct. This imaging study was negative for other obstructive pathologies.

THE DIAGNOSIS

During hospital admission, a noninvasive liver work-up was pursued by Gastroenterology. A hepatitis panel, Epstein-Barr virus testing, and levels of ceruloplasmin and acetaminophen were all found to be within normal limits, excluding additional causes of liver disease. Serum antinuclear antibody (ANA) testing was significantly positive, with a titer of 1:640 (range, < 1:20) and, as noted above, liver transaminases were severely elevated, leading to a presumptive diagnosis of drug-induced liver pathology.

Continue to: During outpatient follow-up...

During outpatient follow-up with Gastroenterology 2 days after discharge, the patient’s liver transaminases and bilirubin continued to trend upward (to a maximum ALT of 871 U/L; AST, 1097 U/L; alkaline phosphatase, 122 U/L; and bilirubin, 2.9 µmol/L). Immunoglobulin G was 1342 mg/mL (normal range, 694-1618 mg/mL).

An ultrasound-guided liver biopsy was performed; it demonstrated lobular, portal, and periportal hepatitis with focal bridging necrosis, consistent with a diagnosis of autoimmune hepatitis. Mild-to-moderate focal cholestasis was demonstrated, consistent with cholestatic hepatitis.

DISCUSSION

Autoimmune hepatitis is characterized by inflammation of the liver, secondary to the presence of circulating antibodies or hypergammaglobulinemia. The pathogenesis is thought to involve a T-cell–mediated immune attack on the liver. Based on case reports,the use of minocycline is associated with risk for liver injury, although the incidence is rare.^1-4 Use of this medication may be associated with autoimmune disease in patients who are predisposed to autoimmune tendencies or who have genetic predeterminants.

Diagnosis is typically made based on abnormalities in aminotransferases (AST, ALT), elevation in serum immunoglobulins, and positive auto-antibody titers including ANA, smooth muscle antibodies, and anti-liver kidney microsomal type 1 antibodies. Although clinical presentations tend to differ, the confirmatory diagnosis is typically made histologically, with the presence of lobular and perivenular necro-inflammatory changes and plasma cell infiltration.⁵

Other infectious and metabolic causes of hepatitis should be excluded. Many medications and herbal agents have been noted to cause autoimmune hepatitis or similar syndromes that mimic the condition.

Medication history. Review of the case patient’s medication list identified ethinyl estradiol/norethindrone acetate and minocycline as potential culprits. Ethinyl estradiol/norethindrone acetate is a low-dose combination oral contraceptive pill (OCP). Although earlier formulations of OCPs were associated with hepatobiliary complications, these adverse effects are noted to be rare in the absence of predisposing conditions.⁶ In some cases, OCPs have been linked to cholestasis, chronic hepatocellular carcinoma, or hepatic adenomas, but studies have shown that these medications do not affect the course of acute liver failure.⁷

Continue to: Minocycline...

Minocyclineassociated hepatotoxicity can be due to a systemic hypersensitivity reaction, occurring within a few weeks of therapy initiation, whereas autoimmune hepatitis manifests after a year or more of exposure to the medication.

In this case, given the patient’s 2-year history of minocycline use, it is possible that she developed an acute presentation of autoimmune hepatitis. With drug-induced autoimmune liver injury, complete resolution occurs after withdrawal of the offending medication, and a response to corticosteroid therapy supports the diagnosis. Recurrence of signs or symptoms following corticosteroid cessation may indicate idiopathic autoimmune hepatitis as opposed to a drug-induced form.²

Our patient was started on steroid and immunomodulator therapy, with prednisone 40 mg/d and mycophenolate 250 mg bid. At follow-up with Gastroenterology, the patient’s symptoms and liver function test results had improved significantly (AST, 27 U/L; ALT, 14 U/L; alkaline phosphatase, 51 U/L; and total bilirubin, 0.4 µmol/L). The patient was continued on a prednisone taper while simultaneously titrating mycophenolate. The ultimate plan of care included continuing mycophenolate for a total of 4 to 5 years.

THE TAKEAWAY

During evaluation of a patient with new-onset liver disease, it is important to inquire about prescription medications, drugs, vitamins, and herbal supplements as possible contributors to the disease process. This case highlights the importance of monitoring patients while on minocycline and of weighing the risks vs benefits of long-term therapy. It has been suggested that liver enzymes be tested before therapy initiation and about every 3 months during long-term antibiotic treatment.⁴ Careful consideration and caution should be taken prior to the initiation of medications that have been linked to rare, but important, adverse reactions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors would like to thank Frank Bauer, MD, and Eva Sotil, MD, for their contributions to this case presentation.

CORRESPONDENCE

Andrea Gillis, DO, Asylum Hill Family Medicine Center, 99 Woodland Street, Hartford, CT 06105; andrea.gillis@ trinityhealthofne.org

THE CASE

A 17-year-old White girl with no known past medical history presented to the emergency department (ED) with complaints of abdominal pain and pruritus. The abdominal pain had started 9 days prior and lasted for 3 days. One day after resolution, she developed bilateral lower extremity itching, which was not relieved with loratadine.

Review of systems included dark urine and yellow eyes noted for several days. The patient denied nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, constipation, fevers, chills, arthralgias, recent illness, travel, or sick contacts. Immunizations were up to date. The patient had no history of surgery or liver disease and no pertinent family history. Her current medications included ethinyl estradiol/norethindrone acetate for birth control and minocycline for acne vulgaris. She had been taking the latter medication for 2 years. No additional medications were noted, including vitamins, over-the-counter medications, or supplements. She denied smoking and alcohol or recreational drug use.

In the ED, the patient had normal vital signs. Physical exam findings included bilateral scleral icterus and scattered skin excoriations on the hands, arms, back of the neck, and feet. At the time of hospital admission, the patient’s minocycline and birth control were held under the initial presumption that one or both might be contributing to her presentation.

Pertinent laboratory findings included aspartate transaminase (AST), 828 U/L (normal range, 2-40 U/L); alanine aminotransferase (ALT), 784 U/L (normal range, 3-30 U/L); lactic acid dehydrogenase, 520 U/L (normal range, 140-280 U/L); alkaline phosphatase, 119 U/L (normal range, 44-147 U/L); total bilirubin, 1.9 µmol/L (normal range, 2-18 µmol/L); and direct bilirubin, 1.3 µmol/L (normal range, 0-4 µmol/L). Baseline liver function test results (prior to admission) were unknown. Results of a coagulation panel, complete blood count, basic metabolic panel, amylase, lipase, urine toxicology, and urinalysis all were within normal limits.

Ultrasound of the abdomen revealed a normal abdomen, liver, pancreas, gallbladder, and common bile duct. This imaging study was negative for other obstructive pathologies.

THE DIAGNOSIS

During hospital admission, a noninvasive liver work-up was pursued by Gastroenterology. A hepatitis panel, Epstein-Barr virus testing, and levels of ceruloplasmin and acetaminophen were all found to be within normal limits, excluding additional causes of liver disease. Serum antinuclear antibody (ANA) testing was significantly positive, with a titer of 1:640 (range, < 1:20) and, as noted above, liver transaminases were severely elevated, leading to a presumptive diagnosis of drug-induced liver pathology.

Continue to: During outpatient follow-up...

During outpatient follow-up with Gastroenterology 2 days after discharge, the patient’s liver transaminases and bilirubin continued to trend upward (to a maximum ALT of 871 U/L; AST, 1097 U/L; alkaline phosphatase, 122 U/L; and bilirubin, 2.9 µmol/L). Immunoglobulin G was 1342 mg/mL (normal range, 694-1618 mg/mL).

An ultrasound-guided liver biopsy was performed; it demonstrated lobular, portal, and periportal hepatitis with focal bridging necrosis, consistent with a diagnosis of autoimmune hepatitis. Mild-to-moderate focal cholestasis was demonstrated, consistent with cholestatic hepatitis.

DISCUSSION

Autoimmune hepatitis is characterized by inflammation of the liver, secondary to the presence of circulating antibodies or hypergammaglobulinemia. The pathogenesis is thought to involve a T-cell–mediated immune attack on the liver. Based on case reports,the use of minocycline is associated with risk for liver injury, although the incidence is rare.^1-4 Use of this medication may be associated with autoimmune disease in patients who are predisposed to autoimmune tendencies or who have genetic predeterminants.

Diagnosis is typically made based on abnormalities in aminotransferases (AST, ALT), elevation in serum immunoglobulins, and positive auto-antibody titers including ANA, smooth muscle antibodies, and anti-liver kidney microsomal type 1 antibodies. Although clinical presentations tend to differ, the confirmatory diagnosis is typically made histologically, with the presence of lobular and perivenular necro-inflammatory changes and plasma cell infiltration.⁵

Other infectious and metabolic causes of hepatitis should be excluded. Many medications and herbal agents have been noted to cause autoimmune hepatitis or similar syndromes that mimic the condition.

Medication history. Review of the case patient’s medication list identified ethinyl estradiol/norethindrone acetate and minocycline as potential culprits. Ethinyl estradiol/norethindrone acetate is a low-dose combination oral contraceptive pill (OCP). Although earlier formulations of OCPs were associated with hepatobiliary complications, these adverse effects are noted to be rare in the absence of predisposing conditions.⁶ In some cases, OCPs have been linked to cholestasis, chronic hepatocellular carcinoma, or hepatic adenomas, but studies have shown that these medications do not affect the course of acute liver failure.⁷

Continue to: Minocycline...

Minocyclineassociated hepatotoxicity can be due to a systemic hypersensitivity reaction, occurring within a few weeks of therapy initiation, whereas autoimmune hepatitis manifests after a year or more of exposure to the medication.

In this case, given the patient’s 2-year history of minocycline use, it is possible that she developed an acute presentation of autoimmune hepatitis. With drug-induced autoimmune liver injury, complete resolution occurs after withdrawal of the offending medication, and a response to corticosteroid therapy supports the diagnosis. Recurrence of signs or symptoms following corticosteroid cessation may indicate idiopathic autoimmune hepatitis as opposed to a drug-induced form.²

Our patient was started on steroid and immunomodulator therapy, with prednisone 40 mg/d and mycophenolate 250 mg bid. At follow-up with Gastroenterology, the patient’s symptoms and liver function test results had improved significantly (AST, 27 U/L; ALT, 14 U/L; alkaline phosphatase, 51 U/L; and total bilirubin, 0.4 µmol/L). The patient was continued on a prednisone taper while simultaneously titrating mycophenolate. The ultimate plan of care included continuing mycophenolate for a total of 4 to 5 years.

THE TAKEAWAY

During evaluation of a patient with new-onset liver disease, it is important to inquire about prescription medications, drugs, vitamins, and herbal supplements as possible contributors to the disease process. This case highlights the importance of monitoring patients while on minocycline and of weighing the risks vs benefits of long-term therapy. It has been suggested that liver enzymes be tested before therapy initiation and about every 3 months during long-term antibiotic treatment.⁴ Careful consideration and caution should be taken prior to the initiation of medications that have been linked to rare, but important, adverse reactions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors would like to thank Frank Bauer, MD, and Eva Sotil, MD, for their contributions to this case presentation.

CORRESPONDENCE

Andrea Gillis, DO, Asylum Hill Family Medicine Center, 99 Woodland Street, Hartford, CT 06105; andrea.gillis@ trinityhealthofne.org

THE CASE

A 17-year-old White girl with no known past medical history presented to the emergency department (ED) with complaints of abdominal pain and pruritus. The abdominal pain had started 9 days prior and lasted for 3 days. One day after resolution, she developed bilateral lower extremity itching, which was not relieved with loratadine.

Review of systems included dark urine and yellow eyes noted for several days. The patient denied nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, constipation, fevers, chills, arthralgias, recent illness, travel, or sick contacts. Immunizations were up to date. The patient had no history of surgery or liver disease and no pertinent family history. Her current medications included ethinyl estradiol/norethindrone acetate for birth control and minocycline for acne vulgaris. She had been taking the latter medication for 2 years. No additional medications were noted, including vitamins, over-the-counter medications, or supplements. She denied smoking and alcohol or recreational drug use.

In the ED, the patient had normal vital signs. Physical exam findings included bilateral scleral icterus and scattered skin excoriations on the hands, arms, back of the neck, and feet. At the time of hospital admission, the patient’s minocycline and birth control were held under the initial presumption that one or both might be contributing to her presentation.

Pertinent laboratory findings included aspartate transaminase (AST), 828 U/L (normal range, 2-40 U/L); alanine aminotransferase (ALT), 784 U/L (normal range, 3-30 U/L); lactic acid dehydrogenase, 520 U/L (normal range, 140-280 U/L); alkaline phosphatase, 119 U/L (normal range, 44-147 U/L); total bilirubin, 1.9 µmol/L (normal range, 2-18 µmol/L); and direct bilirubin, 1.3 µmol/L (normal range, 0-4 µmol/L). Baseline liver function test results (prior to admission) were unknown. Results of a coagulation panel, complete blood count, basic metabolic panel, amylase, lipase, urine toxicology, and urinalysis all were within normal limits.

Ultrasound of the abdomen revealed a normal abdomen, liver, pancreas, gallbladder, and common bile duct. This imaging study was negative for other obstructive pathologies.

THE DIAGNOSIS

During hospital admission, a noninvasive liver work-up was pursued by Gastroenterology. A hepatitis panel, Epstein-Barr virus testing, and levels of ceruloplasmin and acetaminophen were all found to be within normal limits, excluding additional causes of liver disease. Serum antinuclear antibody (ANA) testing was significantly positive, with a titer of 1:640 (range, < 1:20) and, as noted above, liver transaminases were severely elevated, leading to a presumptive diagnosis of drug-induced liver pathology.

Continue to: During outpatient follow-up...

During outpatient follow-up with Gastroenterology 2 days after discharge, the patient’s liver transaminases and bilirubin continued to trend upward (to a maximum ALT of 871 U/L; AST, 1097 U/L; alkaline phosphatase, 122 U/L; and bilirubin, 2.9 µmol/L). Immunoglobulin G was 1342 mg/mL (normal range, 694-1618 mg/mL).

An ultrasound-guided liver biopsy was performed; it demonstrated lobular, portal, and periportal hepatitis with focal bridging necrosis, consistent with a diagnosis of autoimmune hepatitis. Mild-to-moderate focal cholestasis was demonstrated, consistent with cholestatic hepatitis.

DISCUSSION

Autoimmune hepatitis is characterized by inflammation of the liver, secondary to the presence of circulating antibodies or hypergammaglobulinemia. The pathogenesis is thought to involve a T-cell–mediated immune attack on the liver. Based on case reports,the use of minocycline is associated with risk for liver injury, although the incidence is rare.^1-4 Use of this medication may be associated with autoimmune disease in patients who are predisposed to autoimmune tendencies or who have genetic predeterminants.

Diagnosis is typically made based on abnormalities in aminotransferases (AST, ALT), elevation in serum immunoglobulins, and positive auto-antibody titers including ANA, smooth muscle antibodies, and anti-liver kidney microsomal type 1 antibodies. Although clinical presentations tend to differ, the confirmatory diagnosis is typically made histologically, with the presence of lobular and perivenular necro-inflammatory changes and plasma cell infiltration.⁵

Other infectious and metabolic causes of hepatitis should be excluded. Many medications and herbal agents have been noted to cause autoimmune hepatitis or similar syndromes that mimic the condition.

Medication history. Review of the case patient’s medication list identified ethinyl estradiol/norethindrone acetate and minocycline as potential culprits. Ethinyl estradiol/norethindrone acetate is a low-dose combination oral contraceptive pill (OCP). Although earlier formulations of OCPs were associated with hepatobiliary complications, these adverse effects are noted to be rare in the absence of predisposing conditions.⁶ In some cases, OCPs have been linked to cholestasis, chronic hepatocellular carcinoma, or hepatic adenomas, but studies have shown that these medications do not affect the course of acute liver failure.⁷

Continue to: Minocycline...

Minocyclineassociated hepatotoxicity can be due to a systemic hypersensitivity reaction, occurring within a few weeks of therapy initiation, whereas autoimmune hepatitis manifests after a year or more of exposure to the medication.

In this case, given the patient’s 2-year history of minocycline use, it is possible that she developed an acute presentation of autoimmune hepatitis. With drug-induced autoimmune liver injury, complete resolution occurs after withdrawal of the offending medication, and a response to corticosteroid therapy supports the diagnosis. Recurrence of signs or symptoms following corticosteroid cessation may indicate idiopathic autoimmune hepatitis as opposed to a drug-induced form.²

Our patient was started on steroid and immunomodulator therapy, with prednisone 40 mg/d and mycophenolate 250 mg bid. At follow-up with Gastroenterology, the patient’s symptoms and liver function test results had improved significantly (AST, 27 U/L; ALT, 14 U/L; alkaline phosphatase, 51 U/L; and total bilirubin, 0.4 µmol/L). The patient was continued on a prednisone taper while simultaneously titrating mycophenolate. The ultimate plan of care included continuing mycophenolate for a total of 4 to 5 years.

THE TAKEAWAY

During evaluation of a patient with new-onset liver disease, it is important to inquire about prescription medications, drugs, vitamins, and herbal supplements as possible contributors to the disease process. This case highlights the importance of monitoring patients while on minocycline and of weighing the risks vs benefits of long-term therapy. It has been suggested that liver enzymes be tested before therapy initiation and about every 3 months during long-term antibiotic treatment.⁴ Careful consideration and caution should be taken prior to the initiation of medications that have been linked to rare, but important, adverse reactions.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors would like to thank Frank Bauer, MD, and Eva Sotil, MD, for their contributions to this case presentation.

CORRESPONDENCE

Andrea Gillis, DO, Asylum Hill Family Medicine Center, 99 Woodland Street, Hartford, CT 06105; andrea.gillis@ trinityhealthofne.org

Breast cancer survivors are less likely to get pregnant and have higher risks of some delivery and fetal complications, according to a meta-analysis reported at the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

However, the data also showed that pregnancy does not increase the risk of cancer recurrence.

“With the availability of more effective anticancer treatments, survivorship and addressing the treatments’ potential long-term toxicities has gained substantial attention,” said study investigator Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, of University of Genova (Italy) – IRCCS Policlinico San Martino Hospital.

“Returning to a normal life after cancer diagnosis and treatment should be considered, in the 21st century, as a crucial ambition in cancer care,” Dr. Lambertini added. “In patients diagnosed during their reproductive years, this includes the possibility to complete their family planning. Due to the constant rise in age at first pregnancy over the past years, many women are diagnosed with breast cancer before completing their reproductive plans.”

In that context, certain cancer treatments have the potential to reduce fertility. In addition, many women need prolonged hormone therapy, and conception is contraindicated while they are receiving it.

Study results

Dr. Lambertini and colleagues performed a meta-analysis using data from 39 studies that included a total of 114,573 breast cancer patients and 8,093,401 women from the general population.

Results showed that breast cancer survivors were much less likely than women in the general population to become pregnant (relative risk, 0.40; P < .001).

However, “the majority of the studies included in our meta-analysis did not capture the information on how many women tried to get pregnant,” Dr. Lambertini cautioned.

In the few studies that did, more than half of women trying to conceive did become pregnant, and most of them were able to do so naturally, without need for assisted reproductive technologies.

On the flip side, analyses also showed that pregnancies occurred in some women who did not want to conceive, underscoring the importance of comprehensive oncofertility counseling that addresses not only fertility preservation, but also contraception, Dr. Lambertini said.

Among women who became pregnant, breast cancer survivors did not have higher odds of spontaneous abortion or complications such as preeclampsia, and their infants were not significantly more likely to have congenital abnormalities.

However, the breast cancer survivor group did have higher odds of cesarean birth (odds ratio, 1.14; P = .007), low birth weight (OR, 1.50; P < .001), preterm birth (OR, 1.45; P = .006), and infants small for gestational age (OR, 1.16; P = .039).

In stratified analysis, the higher risk of having an infant with low birth weight was significant only for women who had received chemotherapy, and the higher risk of having an infant small for gestational age was significant only for women who had received chemotherapy or who had a late pregnancy (more than 2 years to 5 years after cancer diagnosis).

Among breast cancer survivors, those who became pregnant actually had lower risks of disease-free survival events (hazard ratio, 0.73; P = .016) and death (HR, 0.56; P < .001). Findings were similar in the subset of studies that adjusted for the so-called healthy mother effect.

Pregnancy did not significantly affect disease-free survival among women with hormone receptor–positive disease and appeared protective among women with hormone receptor–negative disease (HR, 0.72).

Pregnancy also appeared safe in terms of overall survival, irrespective of survivors’ BRCA status, nodal status, receipt of chemotherapy, pregnancy outcome (completed vs. abortion), and pregnancy interval.

This study was limited by the lack of patient-level data and by the fact that most of the included studies had a retrospective design, Dr. Lambertini acknowledged.

Close monitoring, early discussions are key

“Results of this meta-analysis provide reassuring, updated evidence on the feasibility and safety of conceiving in young women with prior breast cancer diagnosis. They provide crucial information for improving the oncofertility counseling of young breast cancer patients, helping them and their treating physicians in making evidence-based decisions on future family planning,” Dr. Lambertini commented.

“The higher risk of delivery and fetal complications … calls for ensuring a closer monitoring of these pregnancies,” he added. “The lack of detrimental prognostic effect of pregnancy after breast cancer following appropriate treatment and follow-up strongly voices the need for a deeper consideration of patients’ pregnancy desire as a crucial component of their survivorship care plan and wish to return to a normal life.”

“The findings provide further support regarding the safety of pregnancy following a breast cancer diagnosis,” agreed Halle Moore, MD, of Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute in Ohio, who was not involved in this study.

“I would add that we still have a lot to learn about optimal timing of pregnancy with respect to breast cancer treatment for women with hormone-sensitive breast cancer treated with endocrine therapy,” she said.

The study’s results serve as a reminder that providers should be routinely discussing future pregnancy wishes and fertility preservation options with breast cancer patients at the time of initial diagnosis, Dr. Moore said.

“The earlier we identify an interest in future fertility, the more we can do to improve the chances for a successful pregnancy outcome,” she elaborated. “It is important to assess interest in future pregnancy as soon as possible when a young woman is diagnosed with breast cancer, as fertility preservation options are most likely to be successful when applied prior to chemotherapy or hormonal treatment for breast cancer.”

“The findings also suggest that involvement of a high-risk obstetrics team should be considered for pregnant breast cancer survivors,” Dr. Moore noted.

This research was funded by the Italian Ministry of Health and the Italian Association for Cancer Research. Dr. Lambertini and Dr. Moore disclosed no conflicts of interest. Eva Blondeaux, MD, of University of Genova – IRCCS Policlinico San Martino Hospital, who presented this research at the meeting, disclosed no conflicts as well.
 

SOURCE: Blondeaux e et al. SABCS 2020, Abstract GS3-09.

Breast cancer survivors are less likely to get pregnant and have higher risks of some delivery and fetal complications, according to a meta-analysis reported at the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

However, the data also showed that pregnancy does not increase the risk of cancer recurrence.

“With the availability of more effective anticancer treatments, survivorship and addressing the treatments’ potential long-term toxicities has gained substantial attention,” said study investigator Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, of University of Genova (Italy) – IRCCS Policlinico San Martino Hospital.

“Returning to a normal life after cancer diagnosis and treatment should be considered, in the 21st century, as a crucial ambition in cancer care,” Dr. Lambertini added. “In patients diagnosed during their reproductive years, this includes the possibility to complete their family planning. Due to the constant rise in age at first pregnancy over the past years, many women are diagnosed with breast cancer before completing their reproductive plans.”

In that context, certain cancer treatments have the potential to reduce fertility. In addition, many women need prolonged hormone therapy, and conception is contraindicated while they are receiving it.

Study results

Dr. Lambertini and colleagues performed a meta-analysis using data from 39 studies that included a total of 114,573 breast cancer patients and 8,093,401 women from the general population.

Results showed that breast cancer survivors were much less likely than women in the general population to become pregnant (relative risk, 0.40; P < .001).

However, “the majority of the studies included in our meta-analysis did not capture the information on how many women tried to get pregnant,” Dr. Lambertini cautioned.

In the few studies that did, more than half of women trying to conceive did become pregnant, and most of them were able to do so naturally, without need for assisted reproductive technologies.

On the flip side, analyses also showed that pregnancies occurred in some women who did not want to conceive, underscoring the importance of comprehensive oncofertility counseling that addresses not only fertility preservation, but also contraception, Dr. Lambertini said.

Among women who became pregnant, breast cancer survivors did not have higher odds of spontaneous abortion or complications such as preeclampsia, and their infants were not significantly more likely to have congenital abnormalities.

However, the breast cancer survivor group did have higher odds of cesarean birth (odds ratio, 1.14; P = .007), low birth weight (OR, 1.50; P < .001), preterm birth (OR, 1.45; P = .006), and infants small for gestational age (OR, 1.16; P = .039).

In stratified analysis, the higher risk of having an infant with low birth weight was significant only for women who had received chemotherapy, and the higher risk of having an infant small for gestational age was significant only for women who had received chemotherapy or who had a late pregnancy (more than 2 years to 5 years after cancer diagnosis).

Among breast cancer survivors, those who became pregnant actually had lower risks of disease-free survival events (hazard ratio, 0.73; P = .016) and death (HR, 0.56; P < .001). Findings were similar in the subset of studies that adjusted for the so-called healthy mother effect.

Pregnancy did not significantly affect disease-free survival among women with hormone receptor–positive disease and appeared protective among women with hormone receptor–negative disease (HR, 0.72).

Pregnancy also appeared safe in terms of overall survival, irrespective of survivors’ BRCA status, nodal status, receipt of chemotherapy, pregnancy outcome (completed vs. abortion), and pregnancy interval.

This study was limited by the lack of patient-level data and by the fact that most of the included studies had a retrospective design, Dr. Lambertini acknowledged.

Close monitoring, early discussions are key

“Results of this meta-analysis provide reassuring, updated evidence on the feasibility and safety of conceiving in young women with prior breast cancer diagnosis. They provide crucial information for improving the oncofertility counseling of young breast cancer patients, helping them and their treating physicians in making evidence-based decisions on future family planning,” Dr. Lambertini commented.

“The higher risk of delivery and fetal complications … calls for ensuring a closer monitoring of these pregnancies,” he added. “The lack of detrimental prognostic effect of pregnancy after breast cancer following appropriate treatment and follow-up strongly voices the need for a deeper consideration of patients’ pregnancy desire as a crucial component of their survivorship care plan and wish to return to a normal life.”

“The findings provide further support regarding the safety of pregnancy following a breast cancer diagnosis,” agreed Halle Moore, MD, of Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute in Ohio, who was not involved in this study.

“I would add that we still have a lot to learn about optimal timing of pregnancy with respect to breast cancer treatment for women with hormone-sensitive breast cancer treated with endocrine therapy,” she said.

The study’s results serve as a reminder that providers should be routinely discussing future pregnancy wishes and fertility preservation options with breast cancer patients at the time of initial diagnosis, Dr. Moore said.

“The earlier we identify an interest in future fertility, the more we can do to improve the chances for a successful pregnancy outcome,” she elaborated. “It is important to assess interest in future pregnancy as soon as possible when a young woman is diagnosed with breast cancer, as fertility preservation options are most likely to be successful when applied prior to chemotherapy or hormonal treatment for breast cancer.”

“The findings also suggest that involvement of a high-risk obstetrics team should be considered for pregnant breast cancer survivors,” Dr. Moore noted.

This research was funded by the Italian Ministry of Health and the Italian Association for Cancer Research. Dr. Lambertini and Dr. Moore disclosed no conflicts of interest. Eva Blondeaux, MD, of University of Genova – IRCCS Policlinico San Martino Hospital, who presented this research at the meeting, disclosed no conflicts as well.
 

SOURCE: Blondeaux e et al. SABCS 2020, Abstract GS3-09.

Breast cancer survivors are less likely to get pregnant and have higher risks of some delivery and fetal complications, according to a meta-analysis reported at the 2020 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium.

However, the data also showed that pregnancy does not increase the risk of cancer recurrence.

“With the availability of more effective anticancer treatments, survivorship and addressing the treatments’ potential long-term toxicities has gained substantial attention,” said study investigator Matteo Lambertini, MD, PhD, of University of Genova (Italy) – IRCCS Policlinico San Martino Hospital.

“Returning to a normal life after cancer diagnosis and treatment should be considered, in the 21st century, as a crucial ambition in cancer care,” Dr. Lambertini added. “In patients diagnosed during their reproductive years, this includes the possibility to complete their family planning. Due to the constant rise in age at first pregnancy over the past years, many women are diagnosed with breast cancer before completing their reproductive plans.”

In that context, certain cancer treatments have the potential to reduce fertility. In addition, many women need prolonged hormone therapy, and conception is contraindicated while they are receiving it.

Study results

Dr. Lambertini and colleagues performed a meta-analysis using data from 39 studies that included a total of 114,573 breast cancer patients and 8,093,401 women from the general population.

Results showed that breast cancer survivors were much less likely than women in the general population to become pregnant (relative risk, 0.40; P < .001).

However, “the majority of the studies included in our meta-analysis did not capture the information on how many women tried to get pregnant,” Dr. Lambertini cautioned.

In the few studies that did, more than half of women trying to conceive did become pregnant, and most of them were able to do so naturally, without need for assisted reproductive technologies.

On the flip side, analyses also showed that pregnancies occurred in some women who did not want to conceive, underscoring the importance of comprehensive oncofertility counseling that addresses not only fertility preservation, but also contraception, Dr. Lambertini said.

Among women who became pregnant, breast cancer survivors did not have higher odds of spontaneous abortion or complications such as preeclampsia, and their infants were not significantly more likely to have congenital abnormalities.

However, the breast cancer survivor group did have higher odds of cesarean birth (odds ratio, 1.14; P = .007), low birth weight (OR, 1.50; P < .001), preterm birth (OR, 1.45; P = .006), and infants small for gestational age (OR, 1.16; P = .039).

In stratified analysis, the higher risk of having an infant with low birth weight was significant only for women who had received chemotherapy, and the higher risk of having an infant small for gestational age was significant only for women who had received chemotherapy or who had a late pregnancy (more than 2 years to 5 years after cancer diagnosis).

Among breast cancer survivors, those who became pregnant actually had lower risks of disease-free survival events (hazard ratio, 0.73; P = .016) and death (HR, 0.56; P < .001). Findings were similar in the subset of studies that adjusted for the so-called healthy mother effect.

Pregnancy did not significantly affect disease-free survival among women with hormone receptor–positive disease and appeared protective among women with hormone receptor–negative disease (HR, 0.72).

Pregnancy also appeared safe in terms of overall survival, irrespective of survivors’ BRCA status, nodal status, receipt of chemotherapy, pregnancy outcome (completed vs. abortion), and pregnancy interval.

This study was limited by the lack of patient-level data and by the fact that most of the included studies had a retrospective design, Dr. Lambertini acknowledged.

Close monitoring, early discussions are key

“Results of this meta-analysis provide reassuring, updated evidence on the feasibility and safety of conceiving in young women with prior breast cancer diagnosis. They provide crucial information for improving the oncofertility counseling of young breast cancer patients, helping them and their treating physicians in making evidence-based decisions on future family planning,” Dr. Lambertini commented.

“The higher risk of delivery and fetal complications … calls for ensuring a closer monitoring of these pregnancies,” he added. “The lack of detrimental prognostic effect of pregnancy after breast cancer following appropriate treatment and follow-up strongly voices the need for a deeper consideration of patients’ pregnancy desire as a crucial component of their survivorship care plan and wish to return to a normal life.”

“The findings provide further support regarding the safety of pregnancy following a breast cancer diagnosis,” agreed Halle Moore, MD, of Cleveland Clinic Taussig Cancer Institute in Ohio, who was not involved in this study.

“I would add that we still have a lot to learn about optimal timing of pregnancy with respect to breast cancer treatment for women with hormone-sensitive breast cancer treated with endocrine therapy,” she said.

The study’s results serve as a reminder that providers should be routinely discussing future pregnancy wishes and fertility preservation options with breast cancer patients at the time of initial diagnosis, Dr. Moore said.

“The earlier we identify an interest in future fertility, the more we can do to improve the chances for a successful pregnancy outcome,” she elaborated. “It is important to assess interest in future pregnancy as soon as possible when a young woman is diagnosed with breast cancer, as fertility preservation options are most likely to be successful when applied prior to chemotherapy or hormonal treatment for breast cancer.”

“The findings also suggest that involvement of a high-risk obstetrics team should be considered for pregnant breast cancer survivors,” Dr. Moore noted.

This research was funded by the Italian Ministry of Health and the Italian Association for Cancer Research. Dr. Lambertini and Dr. Moore disclosed no conflicts of interest. Eva Blondeaux, MD, of University of Genova – IRCCS Policlinico San Martino Hospital, who presented this research at the meeting, disclosed no conflicts as well.
 

SOURCE: Blondeaux e et al. SABCS 2020, Abstract GS3-09.

Differences in gene expression between the skin and synovial tissues of individuals with psoriatic arthritis could explain why treatments targeting proinflammatory mechanisms don’t improve joint symptoms in some patients.

SilverV/Thinkstock

A paper published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases presents the results of an observational, open-label study involving 27 patients with active psoriatic arthritis, 18 of whom were treated with anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapies and 9 with the monoclonal antibody ustekinumab (Stelara). This drug targets the axis of proinflammatory cytokine interleukin-23 and effector cytokine IL-12, which are believed to play an important role both in skin and nail psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis.

However, while anti–IL-23 antibodies seem to work well to address skin manifestations of psoriasis, they tend to improve joint symptoms only in selected patients.

“The lack of a clear mechanism to explain such divergent responses prompted this study,” said Dr. Alessandra Nerviani, lead author of the study, from the Barts and The London School of Medicine & Dentistry.

Participants also had biopsies taken from the synovium – in particular, from joints that were clinically and ultrasonographically active – and from lesional and nonlesional skin for gene expression analysis.

In terms of treatment response, the ustekinumab-treated group showed significantly higher scores for erythrocyte sedimentation rate, joint pain, and disease activity, compared with the anti–TNF-treated group. Psoriasis Area and Severity Index scores were similar in both treatment arms, but significantly more patients in the anti-TNF group met the EULAR Disease Activity Score for response (70.6% vs. 22.2%).

The gene expression analysis, which assessed the activity of 80 genes related to inflammation in 14 patient samples from synovial tissue, lesional skin, and nonlesional skin, found that patterns of expression in the synovium clustered away from those from skin.

This was particularly the case when it came to genes related to drug targets. The targets for anti-TNF showed similar levels of expression in both skin and synovial tissue. However, the targets for ustekinumab – namely interleukin (IL)–23A, IL-23R and, IL-12B – showed higher levels of expression in lesional skin than in nonlesional skin and synovial tissue.

“Interestingly, we observed that, while some patients did express IL-23 cytokines/receptor in both skin and joint, others had discordant expression, that is, active IL-23 pathway in the lesional skin but not in the synovium,” the authors wrote.

When researchers then stratified patients according to how much synovial inflammation they had, they found that patients who had higher scores also showed higher expression of genes for IL-12B and IL-23R, but not IL-23A, despite showing no other major clinical differences.

The authors also looked at the protein expression levels for IL-23p40, IL-23p19 and IL-23R, and found that while the percentage of cells positive for these proteins was significantly higher in lesional, compared with nonlesional skin, it was also higher in the synovium among patients with more inflammation.

“Except for the LIKERT patient score, we did not detect other significant correlations between IL-23 axis expression and clinical parameters at baseline, suggesting that patients with comparable disease severity may have, in fact, heterogeneous histopathological features and expression of drug targets within the diseased synovium,” they wrote.

More selective expression of IL-23 in synovium

Commenting on the findings, the authors highlighted that the expression of targets for anti-TNF was much more homogeneous across skin and synovial tissue, but the IL-23A/IL-12B/IL-23R genes generally showed higher levels of expression in lesional skin. compared with either nonlesional skin or synovium. However, even within the synovium, expression of these genes varied enormously, from levels similar to those seen in paired lesional skin to levels well below those.

“It is plausible to speculate that an overall higher presence of IL-23 in the psoriatic skin supports the concept of a generally better response in terms of skin manifestations, including almost complete clearance of psoriatic lesions,” Dr. Nerviani said in an interview. “While, on the other hand, the more selective expression of IL-23 in the synovium, namely in histologically more inflamed synovium characterized by immune cells infiltration, may explain the overall more modest success to meet stringent response criteria in the joints.“

Of particular significance was the observation that IL-12B and IL-23R transcription levels were higher in patients with higher levels of synovial tissue inflammation.

“We confirmed that IL-23 axis expression relates to the synovial histopathology not only in PsA at different stages of the disease, including early treatment-naive patients, but also in the early phase of RA, investigated as disease control,” they wrote.

Dr. Nerviani said the results could inform a more tailored “precision medicine” approach to treating patients with psoriatic arthritis.

“While randomized synovial biopsy–driven clinical trials are now a reality in rheumatoid arthritis, in psoriatic arthritis, these kinds of studies have not been performed yet but may become actual in the future,” she said. “An in-depth characterization of the synovial tissue represents the first essential step towards addressing current unmet clinical needs and, potentially, changing our practice.”

However, she stressed that the study was not powered to test the correlation between the expression level of these pathways in disease tissue and clinical response to treatment.

“Further dedicated clinical trials should be designed to look at the relationship between synovial pathology and molecular characteristics, and response to targeted treatment to address this question,” Dr. Nerviani said.

The study was supported by the Queen Mary University of London and the Fondazione Ceschina, and in part by grants from Versus Arthritis. No conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Nerviani A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Nov 26. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-218186.

Nerviani A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Nov 26. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-218186.

Differences in gene expression between the skin and synovial tissues of individuals with psoriatic arthritis could explain why treatments targeting proinflammatory mechanisms don’t improve joint symptoms in some patients.

SilverV/Thinkstock

A paper published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases presents the results of an observational, open-label study involving 27 patients with active psoriatic arthritis, 18 of whom were treated with anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapies and 9 with the monoclonal antibody ustekinumab (Stelara). This drug targets the axis of proinflammatory cytokine interleukin-23 and effector cytokine IL-12, which are believed to play an important role both in skin and nail psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis.

However, while anti–IL-23 antibodies seem to work well to address skin manifestations of psoriasis, they tend to improve joint symptoms only in selected patients.

“The lack of a clear mechanism to explain such divergent responses prompted this study,” said Dr. Alessandra Nerviani, lead author of the study, from the Barts and The London School of Medicine & Dentistry.

Participants also had biopsies taken from the synovium – in particular, from joints that were clinically and ultrasonographically active – and from lesional and nonlesional skin for gene expression analysis.

In terms of treatment response, the ustekinumab-treated group showed significantly higher scores for erythrocyte sedimentation rate, joint pain, and disease activity, compared with the anti–TNF-treated group. Psoriasis Area and Severity Index scores were similar in both treatment arms, but significantly more patients in the anti-TNF group met the EULAR Disease Activity Score for response (70.6% vs. 22.2%).

The gene expression analysis, which assessed the activity of 80 genes related to inflammation in 14 patient samples from synovial tissue, lesional skin, and nonlesional skin, found that patterns of expression in the synovium clustered away from those from skin.

This was particularly the case when it came to genes related to drug targets. The targets for anti-TNF showed similar levels of expression in both skin and synovial tissue. However, the targets for ustekinumab – namely interleukin (IL)–23A, IL-23R and, IL-12B – showed higher levels of expression in lesional skin than in nonlesional skin and synovial tissue.

“Interestingly, we observed that, while some patients did express IL-23 cytokines/receptor in both skin and joint, others had discordant expression, that is, active IL-23 pathway in the lesional skin but not in the synovium,” the authors wrote.

When researchers then stratified patients according to how much synovial inflammation they had, they found that patients who had higher scores also showed higher expression of genes for IL-12B and IL-23R, but not IL-23A, despite showing no other major clinical differences.

The authors also looked at the protein expression levels for IL-23p40, IL-23p19 and IL-23R, and found that while the percentage of cells positive for these proteins was significantly higher in lesional, compared with nonlesional skin, it was also higher in the synovium among patients with more inflammation.

“Except for the LIKERT patient score, we did not detect other significant correlations between IL-23 axis expression and clinical parameters at baseline, suggesting that patients with comparable disease severity may have, in fact, heterogeneous histopathological features and expression of drug targets within the diseased synovium,” they wrote.

More selective expression of IL-23 in synovium

Commenting on the findings, the authors highlighted that the expression of targets for anti-TNF was much more homogeneous across skin and synovial tissue, but the IL-23A/IL-12B/IL-23R genes generally showed higher levels of expression in lesional skin. compared with either nonlesional skin or synovium. However, even within the synovium, expression of these genes varied enormously, from levels similar to those seen in paired lesional skin to levels well below those.

“It is plausible to speculate that an overall higher presence of IL-23 in the psoriatic skin supports the concept of a generally better response in terms of skin manifestations, including almost complete clearance of psoriatic lesions,” Dr. Nerviani said in an interview. “While, on the other hand, the more selective expression of IL-23 in the synovium, namely in histologically more inflamed synovium characterized by immune cells infiltration, may explain the overall more modest success to meet stringent response criteria in the joints.“

Of particular significance was the observation that IL-12B and IL-23R transcription levels were higher in patients with higher levels of synovial tissue inflammation.

“We confirmed that IL-23 axis expression relates to the synovial histopathology not only in PsA at different stages of the disease, including early treatment-naive patients, but also in the early phase of RA, investigated as disease control,” they wrote.

Dr. Nerviani said the results could inform a more tailored “precision medicine” approach to treating patients with psoriatic arthritis.

“While randomized synovial biopsy–driven clinical trials are now a reality in rheumatoid arthritis, in psoriatic arthritis, these kinds of studies have not been performed yet but may become actual in the future,” she said. “An in-depth characterization of the synovial tissue represents the first essential step towards addressing current unmet clinical needs and, potentially, changing our practice.”

However, she stressed that the study was not powered to test the correlation between the expression level of these pathways in disease tissue and clinical response to treatment.

“Further dedicated clinical trials should be designed to look at the relationship between synovial pathology and molecular characteristics, and response to targeted treatment to address this question,” Dr. Nerviani said.

The study was supported by the Queen Mary University of London and the Fondazione Ceschina, and in part by grants from Versus Arthritis. No conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Nerviani A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Nov 26. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-218186.

Nerviani A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Nov 26. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-218186.

Differences in gene expression between the skin and synovial tissues of individuals with psoriatic arthritis could explain why treatments targeting proinflammatory mechanisms don’t improve joint symptoms in some patients.

SilverV/Thinkstock

A paper published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases presents the results of an observational, open-label study involving 27 patients with active psoriatic arthritis, 18 of whom were treated with anti–tumor necrosis factor (anti-TNF) therapies and 9 with the monoclonal antibody ustekinumab (Stelara). This drug targets the axis of proinflammatory cytokine interleukin-23 and effector cytokine IL-12, which are believed to play an important role both in skin and nail psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis.

However, while anti–IL-23 antibodies seem to work well to address skin manifestations of psoriasis, they tend to improve joint symptoms only in selected patients.

“The lack of a clear mechanism to explain such divergent responses prompted this study,” said Dr. Alessandra Nerviani, lead author of the study, from the Barts and The London School of Medicine & Dentistry.

Participants also had biopsies taken from the synovium – in particular, from joints that were clinically and ultrasonographically active – and from lesional and nonlesional skin for gene expression analysis.

In terms of treatment response, the ustekinumab-treated group showed significantly higher scores for erythrocyte sedimentation rate, joint pain, and disease activity, compared with the anti–TNF-treated group. Psoriasis Area and Severity Index scores were similar in both treatment arms, but significantly more patients in the anti-TNF group met the EULAR Disease Activity Score for response (70.6% vs. 22.2%).

The gene expression analysis, which assessed the activity of 80 genes related to inflammation in 14 patient samples from synovial tissue, lesional skin, and nonlesional skin, found that patterns of expression in the synovium clustered away from those from skin.

This was particularly the case when it came to genes related to drug targets. The targets for anti-TNF showed similar levels of expression in both skin and synovial tissue. However, the targets for ustekinumab – namely interleukin (IL)–23A, IL-23R and, IL-12B – showed higher levels of expression in lesional skin than in nonlesional skin and synovial tissue.

“Interestingly, we observed that, while some patients did express IL-23 cytokines/receptor in both skin and joint, others had discordant expression, that is, active IL-23 pathway in the lesional skin but not in the synovium,” the authors wrote.

When researchers then stratified patients according to how much synovial inflammation they had, they found that patients who had higher scores also showed higher expression of genes for IL-12B and IL-23R, but not IL-23A, despite showing no other major clinical differences.

The authors also looked at the protein expression levels for IL-23p40, IL-23p19 and IL-23R, and found that while the percentage of cells positive for these proteins was significantly higher in lesional, compared with nonlesional skin, it was also higher in the synovium among patients with more inflammation.

“Except for the LIKERT patient score, we did not detect other significant correlations between IL-23 axis expression and clinical parameters at baseline, suggesting that patients with comparable disease severity may have, in fact, heterogeneous histopathological features and expression of drug targets within the diseased synovium,” they wrote.

More selective expression of IL-23 in synovium

Commenting on the findings, the authors highlighted that the expression of targets for anti-TNF was much more homogeneous across skin and synovial tissue, but the IL-23A/IL-12B/IL-23R genes generally showed higher levels of expression in lesional skin. compared with either nonlesional skin or synovium. However, even within the synovium, expression of these genes varied enormously, from levels similar to those seen in paired lesional skin to levels well below those.

“It is plausible to speculate that an overall higher presence of IL-23 in the psoriatic skin supports the concept of a generally better response in terms of skin manifestations, including almost complete clearance of psoriatic lesions,” Dr. Nerviani said in an interview. “While, on the other hand, the more selective expression of IL-23 in the synovium, namely in histologically more inflamed synovium characterized by immune cells infiltration, may explain the overall more modest success to meet stringent response criteria in the joints.“

Of particular significance was the observation that IL-12B and IL-23R transcription levels were higher in patients with higher levels of synovial tissue inflammation.

“We confirmed that IL-23 axis expression relates to the synovial histopathology not only in PsA at different stages of the disease, including early treatment-naive patients, but also in the early phase of RA, investigated as disease control,” they wrote.

Dr. Nerviani said the results could inform a more tailored “precision medicine” approach to treating patients with psoriatic arthritis.

“While randomized synovial biopsy–driven clinical trials are now a reality in rheumatoid arthritis, in psoriatic arthritis, these kinds of studies have not been performed yet but may become actual in the future,” she said. “An in-depth characterization of the synovial tissue represents the first essential step towards addressing current unmet clinical needs and, potentially, changing our practice.”

However, she stressed that the study was not powered to test the correlation between the expression level of these pathways in disease tissue and clinical response to treatment.

“Further dedicated clinical trials should be designed to look at the relationship between synovial pathology and molecular characteristics, and response to targeted treatment to address this question,” Dr. Nerviani said.

The study was supported by the Queen Mary University of London and the Fondazione Ceschina, and in part by grants from Versus Arthritis. No conflicts of interest were declared.

SOURCE: Nerviani A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Nov 26. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-218186.

Nerviani A et al. Ann Rheum Dis. 2020 Nov 26. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2020-218186.

For B-cell malignancies, synthetic lethality is a viable treatment approach, according to preliminary clinical trial data with once-daily oral DTRM-555. The triple combination therapy, DTRM-555, combines a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor, a mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor and pomalidomide, an immunomodulatory imide drug (IMiD), according to Anthony R. Mato, MD, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, which was held virtually.
 

Richter’s transformation, a rare event

Dr. Mato’s phase 1 clinical trial included 13 patients with Richter’s transformation (RT) and 11 with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Richter’s transformation, a rare event occurring in 5%-7% of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) cases, has no clear standard of care and universally poor outcomes (overall survival, 3-12 months) once it becomes refractory to anthracycline-based chemotherapy, according to Dr. Mato.

Despite great progress in treating DLBCL, cure rates with R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone), the standard of care, are in the 50%-60% range and much lower (30%-40%) with poor-risk features. Furthermore, most (60%-70%) patients receiving autologous stem cell transplant or CAR-T still require additional lines of therapy.

The “synthetic lethality” (SL) strategy, which has become a focus of cancer treatment in the last decade, identifies multiple disease primary aberrant and compensatory pathways and then inhibits them together in a manner lethal to cell survival. Preclinical studies have shown low doses of a BTK inhibitor/mTOR inhibitor/IMiD to synergistically kill malignant B cells. DTRM-555 is an optimized, oral, once-daily triplet combination of a novel and clinically differentiated irreversible BTK inhibitor (DTRM-12), everolimus and pomalidomide, Dr. Mato explained.

Individuals (38% women) included in the trial had a median of 2 (1-10) prior lines of therapy, with a CD20 monoclonal antibody as one of them in all cases, and 83% with R-CHOP. All patients had life expectancy >12 weeks, with 0-1 performance status and adequate organ and hematologic function.

DTRM-12 plasma concentrations, Dr. Mato noted, were unaffected by coadministration with everolimus with or without pomalidomide.
 

Manageable adverse events

Among adverse events, neutropenia (grade 3-4, 33%/21%) and thrombocytopenia (grade 3-4, 29%/8%) were most common. One patient had grade 4 leukopenia (4%). No patients discontinued treatment on account of adverse events, however, and nonhematologic adverse event rates were low, without grade 4 events. Eight different grade 3 adverse events (atrial fibrillation [with prior history], diarrhea, hyponatremia pneumonia, pulmonary opportunistic infection, rash maculopapular, rash acneiform, skin ulceration) were reported, each in one patient. Pharmacokinetic data supported once-daily dosing for DTRM-12, with an estimated half-life of 5-9 hours that was comparable with that of once-daily ibrutinib, and longer than that of other agents of the same class. The recommended phase 2 dose going forward was 200 mg for DTRM-12, 5 mg for everolimus and 2 mg for pomalidomide.
 

Favorable responses

In efficacy analysis for 22 evaluable patients (11 in the RT group, 11 in the DLBCL ), there was 1 complete response in the RT group and 2 in the DLBCL group, with partial responses in 4 and 3, respectively, giving overall response rates of 46% in the RT group and 45% in the DLBCL group. Two and four patients, respectively, in the RT and DLBCL groups, had stable disease, Dr. Mato said, and most patients (71%) had SPD (sum of the product of the diameters) lymph node reductions, with lymph node reductions of 50% or more in 43%.

“Encouraging clinical activity was observed in high-risk, heavily pretreated Richter’s transformation and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients,” Dr. Mato concluded. He also noted that the main safety findings were “expected and manageable.”

The session moderator, Chaitra S. Ujjani, MD, of the Seattle Health Care Alliance, asked if the DTRM-555 regimen should be considered definitive therapy in patients who are responding, or if moving on to cellular therapies or a consolidative approach should be considered.

“If they are responding, it is reasonable to consider consolidating with a cellular therapy at this point in time,” Dr. Mato replied. He did observe, however, that many of the included patients had tried experimental therapies, including cellular therapy. “Without [data from] a much larger patient population and longer-term follow-up, I think that, for responding patients with a durable remission who have a [chimeric antigen receptor] T or transplant option, these, at the least, have to be discussed with them.”

To an additional question as to whether any of the subjects had prior exposure to BTK inhibitors, Dr. Mato responded, “There is a high exposure to BTK inhibitors, and almost universally these patients were progressors. So again, this is supportive of the hypothesis that hitting multiple pathways simultaneously is somewhat different from hitting just BTK by itself, even in the setting of progression.”

A DTRM-555 triple fixed-dose combination tablet is under development, and a double fixed-dose tablet (DTRM-505) is ready for the ongoing phase 2 U.S. study (NCT04030544) among patients with relapsed/refractory CLL or non-Hodgkin lymphoma (RT, DLBCL or transformed follicular lymphoma) with prior exposure to a novel agent.

Dr. Mato, disclosed consultancy and research funding relationships with multiple pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.

SOURCE: Mato AR et al. ASH 2020, Abstract 126.

For B-cell malignancies, synthetic lethality is a viable treatment approach, according to preliminary clinical trial data with once-daily oral DTRM-555. The triple combination therapy, DTRM-555, combines a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor, a mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor and pomalidomide, an immunomodulatory imide drug (IMiD), according to Anthony R. Mato, MD, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, which was held virtually.
 

Richter’s transformation, a rare event

Dr. Mato’s phase 1 clinical trial included 13 patients with Richter’s transformation (RT) and 11 with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Richter’s transformation, a rare event occurring in 5%-7% of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) cases, has no clear standard of care and universally poor outcomes (overall survival, 3-12 months) once it becomes refractory to anthracycline-based chemotherapy, according to Dr. Mato.

Despite great progress in treating DLBCL, cure rates with R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone), the standard of care, are in the 50%-60% range and much lower (30%-40%) with poor-risk features. Furthermore, most (60%-70%) patients receiving autologous stem cell transplant or CAR-T still require additional lines of therapy.

The “synthetic lethality” (SL) strategy, which has become a focus of cancer treatment in the last decade, identifies multiple disease primary aberrant and compensatory pathways and then inhibits them together in a manner lethal to cell survival. Preclinical studies have shown low doses of a BTK inhibitor/mTOR inhibitor/IMiD to synergistically kill malignant B cells. DTRM-555 is an optimized, oral, once-daily triplet combination of a novel and clinically differentiated irreversible BTK inhibitor (DTRM-12), everolimus and pomalidomide, Dr. Mato explained.

Individuals (38% women) included in the trial had a median of 2 (1-10) prior lines of therapy, with a CD20 monoclonal antibody as one of them in all cases, and 83% with R-CHOP. All patients had life expectancy >12 weeks, with 0-1 performance status and adequate organ and hematologic function.

DTRM-12 plasma concentrations, Dr. Mato noted, were unaffected by coadministration with everolimus with or without pomalidomide.
 

Manageable adverse events

Among adverse events, neutropenia (grade 3-4, 33%/21%) and thrombocytopenia (grade 3-4, 29%/8%) were most common. One patient had grade 4 leukopenia (4%). No patients discontinued treatment on account of adverse events, however, and nonhematologic adverse event rates were low, without grade 4 events. Eight different grade 3 adverse events (atrial fibrillation [with prior history], diarrhea, hyponatremia pneumonia, pulmonary opportunistic infection, rash maculopapular, rash acneiform, skin ulceration) were reported, each in one patient. Pharmacokinetic data supported once-daily dosing for DTRM-12, with an estimated half-life of 5-9 hours that was comparable with that of once-daily ibrutinib, and longer than that of other agents of the same class. The recommended phase 2 dose going forward was 200 mg for DTRM-12, 5 mg for everolimus and 2 mg for pomalidomide.
 

Favorable responses

In efficacy analysis for 22 evaluable patients (11 in the RT group, 11 in the DLBCL ), there was 1 complete response in the RT group and 2 in the DLBCL group, with partial responses in 4 and 3, respectively, giving overall response rates of 46% in the RT group and 45% in the DLBCL group. Two and four patients, respectively, in the RT and DLBCL groups, had stable disease, Dr. Mato said, and most patients (71%) had SPD (sum of the product of the diameters) lymph node reductions, with lymph node reductions of 50% or more in 43%.

“Encouraging clinical activity was observed in high-risk, heavily pretreated Richter’s transformation and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients,” Dr. Mato concluded. He also noted that the main safety findings were “expected and manageable.”

The session moderator, Chaitra S. Ujjani, MD, of the Seattle Health Care Alliance, asked if the DTRM-555 regimen should be considered definitive therapy in patients who are responding, or if moving on to cellular therapies or a consolidative approach should be considered.

“If they are responding, it is reasonable to consider consolidating with a cellular therapy at this point in time,” Dr. Mato replied. He did observe, however, that many of the included patients had tried experimental therapies, including cellular therapy. “Without [data from] a much larger patient population and longer-term follow-up, I think that, for responding patients with a durable remission who have a [chimeric antigen receptor] T or transplant option, these, at the least, have to be discussed with them.”

To an additional question as to whether any of the subjects had prior exposure to BTK inhibitors, Dr. Mato responded, “There is a high exposure to BTK inhibitors, and almost universally these patients were progressors. So again, this is supportive of the hypothesis that hitting multiple pathways simultaneously is somewhat different from hitting just BTK by itself, even in the setting of progression.”

A DTRM-555 triple fixed-dose combination tablet is under development, and a double fixed-dose tablet (DTRM-505) is ready for the ongoing phase 2 U.S. study (NCT04030544) among patients with relapsed/refractory CLL or non-Hodgkin lymphoma (RT, DLBCL or transformed follicular lymphoma) with prior exposure to a novel agent.

Dr. Mato, disclosed consultancy and research funding relationships with multiple pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.

SOURCE: Mato AR et al. ASH 2020, Abstract 126.

For B-cell malignancies, synthetic lethality is a viable treatment approach, according to preliminary clinical trial data with once-daily oral DTRM-555. The triple combination therapy, DTRM-555, combines a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor, a mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor and pomalidomide, an immunomodulatory imide drug (IMiD), according to Anthony R. Mato, MD, in a presentation at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, which was held virtually.
 

Richter’s transformation, a rare event

Dr. Mato’s phase 1 clinical trial included 13 patients with Richter’s transformation (RT) and 11 with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL). Richter’s transformation, a rare event occurring in 5%-7% of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) cases, has no clear standard of care and universally poor outcomes (overall survival, 3-12 months) once it becomes refractory to anthracycline-based chemotherapy, according to Dr. Mato.

Despite great progress in treating DLBCL, cure rates with R-CHOP (rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, prednisone), the standard of care, are in the 50%-60% range and much lower (30%-40%) with poor-risk features. Furthermore, most (60%-70%) patients receiving autologous stem cell transplant or CAR-T still require additional lines of therapy.

The “synthetic lethality” (SL) strategy, which has become a focus of cancer treatment in the last decade, identifies multiple disease primary aberrant and compensatory pathways and then inhibits them together in a manner lethal to cell survival. Preclinical studies have shown low doses of a BTK inhibitor/mTOR inhibitor/IMiD to synergistically kill malignant B cells. DTRM-555 is an optimized, oral, once-daily triplet combination of a novel and clinically differentiated irreversible BTK inhibitor (DTRM-12), everolimus and pomalidomide, Dr. Mato explained.

Individuals (38% women) included in the trial had a median of 2 (1-10) prior lines of therapy, with a CD20 monoclonal antibody as one of them in all cases, and 83% with R-CHOP. All patients had life expectancy >12 weeks, with 0-1 performance status and adequate organ and hematologic function.

DTRM-12 plasma concentrations, Dr. Mato noted, were unaffected by coadministration with everolimus with or without pomalidomide.
 

Manageable adverse events

Among adverse events, neutropenia (grade 3-4, 33%/21%) and thrombocytopenia (grade 3-4, 29%/8%) were most common. One patient had grade 4 leukopenia (4%). No patients discontinued treatment on account of adverse events, however, and nonhematologic adverse event rates were low, without grade 4 events. Eight different grade 3 adverse events (atrial fibrillation [with prior history], diarrhea, hyponatremia pneumonia, pulmonary opportunistic infection, rash maculopapular, rash acneiform, skin ulceration) were reported, each in one patient. Pharmacokinetic data supported once-daily dosing for DTRM-12, with an estimated half-life of 5-9 hours that was comparable with that of once-daily ibrutinib, and longer than that of other agents of the same class. The recommended phase 2 dose going forward was 200 mg for DTRM-12, 5 mg for everolimus and 2 mg for pomalidomide.
 

Favorable responses

In efficacy analysis for 22 evaluable patients (11 in the RT group, 11 in the DLBCL ), there was 1 complete response in the RT group and 2 in the DLBCL group, with partial responses in 4 and 3, respectively, giving overall response rates of 46% in the RT group and 45% in the DLBCL group. Two and four patients, respectively, in the RT and DLBCL groups, had stable disease, Dr. Mato said, and most patients (71%) had SPD (sum of the product of the diameters) lymph node reductions, with lymph node reductions of 50% or more in 43%.

“Encouraging clinical activity was observed in high-risk, heavily pretreated Richter’s transformation and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients,” Dr. Mato concluded. He also noted that the main safety findings were “expected and manageable.”

The session moderator, Chaitra S. Ujjani, MD, of the Seattle Health Care Alliance, asked if the DTRM-555 regimen should be considered definitive therapy in patients who are responding, or if moving on to cellular therapies or a consolidative approach should be considered.

“If they are responding, it is reasonable to consider consolidating with a cellular therapy at this point in time,” Dr. Mato replied. He did observe, however, that many of the included patients had tried experimental therapies, including cellular therapy. “Without [data from] a much larger patient population and longer-term follow-up, I think that, for responding patients with a durable remission who have a [chimeric antigen receptor] T or transplant option, these, at the least, have to be discussed with them.”

To an additional question as to whether any of the subjects had prior exposure to BTK inhibitors, Dr. Mato responded, “There is a high exposure to BTK inhibitors, and almost universally these patients were progressors. So again, this is supportive of the hypothesis that hitting multiple pathways simultaneously is somewhat different from hitting just BTK by itself, even in the setting of progression.”

A DTRM-555 triple fixed-dose combination tablet is under development, and a double fixed-dose tablet (DTRM-505) is ready for the ongoing phase 2 U.S. study (NCT04030544) among patients with relapsed/refractory CLL or non-Hodgkin lymphoma (RT, DLBCL or transformed follicular lymphoma) with prior exposure to a novel agent.

Dr. Mato, disclosed consultancy and research funding relationships with multiple pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.

SOURCE: Mato AR et al. ASH 2020, Abstract 126.

A wrist-worn device that uses machine learning accurately detects different seizure types. The new findings have the potential to revolutionize the management of patients with epilepsy, according to the researchers. “We have set a first benchmark for automatic detection of a variety of epileptic seizures using wearable sensors and deep-learning algorithms. In other words, we have shown for the first time that it’s possible to do this,” said study investigator Jianbin Tang, MA, data science project lead, IBM Research Australia, Victoria.

The findings were presented at the American Epilepsy Society’s annual meeting, held online this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Accurate monitoring of seizures is important for assessing risk, injury prevention, and treatment response evaluation. Currently, video EEG is the gold standard for seizure detection, but it requires a hospital stay, is often costly, and can be stigmatizing, said Mr. Tang.
 

An advance in detecting seizure types

Recent advances in non-EEG wearable devices show promise in detecting generalized onset tonic-clonic and focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures, but it’s not clear if they have the ability to detect other seizure types. “We hope to fill this gap by expanding wearable seizure detection to additional seizure types,” said Mr. Tang.

Seizure tracking outside the hospital setting largely “relies on manually annotated family and patient reports, which often can be unreliable due to missed seizures and problems recalling seizures,” he said.

The study included 75 children (44% were female; mean age was 11.1 years) admitted to a long-term EEG monitoring unit at a single center for a 24-hour stay. Patients wore the detector on the ankle or wrist. The device continuously collected data on functions such as sweating, heart rate, movement, and temperature.

With part of the dataset, researchers trained deep-learning algorithms to automatically detect seizure segments. They then validated the performance of the detection algorithms on the remainder of the dataset.

The analysis was based on data from 722 epileptic seizures of all types including focal and generalized, motor and nonmotor. Seizures occurred throughout the day and during the night while patients were awake or asleep.

When a seizure is detected, the system triggers a real-time alert and will store the information about the detected seizure in a repository, said Mr. Tang.

The signals were initially stored in the wristband and then securely uploaded to the Cloud. From there, the signal files were downloaded by the investigators for analysis and interpretation. All data were entirely anonymized and de-identified. Researchers used Area Under Curve–Receiver Operating Characteristic (AUC-ROC) to assess performance.

“Our best performing detection models reach an AUC-ROC of 67.59%, which represents a decent performance level,” said Mr. Tang. “There certainly is room for performance improvement and we are already working on this,” he added.  

The device performed “better than chance,” which is a “standard technical term” in the field of machine learning and is “the first hurdle any machine-learning model needs to take to be considered useful.” The investigators noted that such automatic seizure detection “is feasible across a broad spectrum of epileptic seizure types,” said Mr. Tang. “This is a first and has not been shown before.”

The study suggests that the noninvasive wearable device could be used at home, at school, and in other everyday settings outside the clinic. “This could one day provide patients, caregivers, and clinicians with reliable seizure reports,” said Mr. Tang.

He said he believes the device might be especially useful in detecting frequent or subtle seizures, which are easy to miss. Patients requiring medication evaluation and rescue medication and those at risk of status epilepticus may be good candidates.

The researchers don’t expect wearable technology to totally replace EEG but see it as “a useful complementary tool to track seizures continuously at times or in settings where EEG monitoring is not available,” said Mr. Tang.
 

‘Important milestone’

Commenting on the research, Benjamin H. Brinkmann, PhD, associate professor of neurology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said the investigators “have done very good work applying state of the art machine learning techniques” to the “important problem” of accurately detecting seizures.

Dr. Brinkmann is part of the Epilepsy Foundation–sponsored “My Seizure Gauge” project that’s evaluating various wearable devices, including the Empatica E4 wristband and the Fitbit Charge 3, to determine what measurements are needed for reliable seizure forecasting.

“Previously, no one knew whether seizure prediction was possible with these devices, and the fact that this group was able to achieve ‘better-than-chance’ prediction accuracy is an important milestone.”

However, he emphasized that there is still a great deal of work to be done to determine, for example, if seizure prediction with these devices can be accurate enough to be clinically useful. “For example, if the system generates too many false-positive predictions, patients won’t use it.”

In addition, the findings need to be replicated and recordings extended to 6 months or more to determine whether they are helpful to patients long term and in the home environment, said Dr. Brinkmann.

The investigators and Dr. Brinkmann have disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

A wrist-worn device that uses machine learning accurately detects different seizure types. The new findings have the potential to revolutionize the management of patients with epilepsy, according to the researchers. “We have set a first benchmark for automatic detection of a variety of epileptic seizures using wearable sensors and deep-learning algorithms. In other words, we have shown for the first time that it’s possible to do this,” said study investigator Jianbin Tang, MA, data science project lead, IBM Research Australia, Victoria.

The findings were presented at the American Epilepsy Society’s annual meeting, held online this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Accurate monitoring of seizures is important for assessing risk, injury prevention, and treatment response evaluation. Currently, video EEG is the gold standard for seizure detection, but it requires a hospital stay, is often costly, and can be stigmatizing, said Mr. Tang.
 

An advance in detecting seizure types

Recent advances in non-EEG wearable devices show promise in detecting generalized onset tonic-clonic and focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures, but it’s not clear if they have the ability to detect other seizure types. “We hope to fill this gap by expanding wearable seizure detection to additional seizure types,” said Mr. Tang.

Seizure tracking outside the hospital setting largely “relies on manually annotated family and patient reports, which often can be unreliable due to missed seizures and problems recalling seizures,” he said.

The study included 75 children (44% were female; mean age was 11.1 years) admitted to a long-term EEG monitoring unit at a single center for a 24-hour stay. Patients wore the detector on the ankle or wrist. The device continuously collected data on functions such as sweating, heart rate, movement, and temperature.

With part of the dataset, researchers trained deep-learning algorithms to automatically detect seizure segments. They then validated the performance of the detection algorithms on the remainder of the dataset.

The analysis was based on data from 722 epileptic seizures of all types including focal and generalized, motor and nonmotor. Seizures occurred throughout the day and during the night while patients were awake or asleep.

When a seizure is detected, the system triggers a real-time alert and will store the information about the detected seizure in a repository, said Mr. Tang.

The signals were initially stored in the wristband and then securely uploaded to the Cloud. From there, the signal files were downloaded by the investigators for analysis and interpretation. All data were entirely anonymized and de-identified. Researchers used Area Under Curve–Receiver Operating Characteristic (AUC-ROC) to assess performance.

“Our best performing detection models reach an AUC-ROC of 67.59%, which represents a decent performance level,” said Mr. Tang. “There certainly is room for performance improvement and we are already working on this,” he added.  

The device performed “better than chance,” which is a “standard technical term” in the field of machine learning and is “the first hurdle any machine-learning model needs to take to be considered useful.” The investigators noted that such automatic seizure detection “is feasible across a broad spectrum of epileptic seizure types,” said Mr. Tang. “This is a first and has not been shown before.”

The study suggests that the noninvasive wearable device could be used at home, at school, and in other everyday settings outside the clinic. “This could one day provide patients, caregivers, and clinicians with reliable seizure reports,” said Mr. Tang.

He said he believes the device might be especially useful in detecting frequent or subtle seizures, which are easy to miss. Patients requiring medication evaluation and rescue medication and those at risk of status epilepticus may be good candidates.

The researchers don’t expect wearable technology to totally replace EEG but see it as “a useful complementary tool to track seizures continuously at times or in settings where EEG monitoring is not available,” said Mr. Tang.
 

‘Important milestone’

Commenting on the research, Benjamin H. Brinkmann, PhD, associate professor of neurology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said the investigators “have done very good work applying state of the art machine learning techniques” to the “important problem” of accurately detecting seizures.

Dr. Brinkmann is part of the Epilepsy Foundation–sponsored “My Seizure Gauge” project that’s evaluating various wearable devices, including the Empatica E4 wristband and the Fitbit Charge 3, to determine what measurements are needed for reliable seizure forecasting.

“Previously, no one knew whether seizure prediction was possible with these devices, and the fact that this group was able to achieve ‘better-than-chance’ prediction accuracy is an important milestone.”

However, he emphasized that there is still a great deal of work to be done to determine, for example, if seizure prediction with these devices can be accurate enough to be clinically useful. “For example, if the system generates too many false-positive predictions, patients won’t use it.”

In addition, the findings need to be replicated and recordings extended to 6 months or more to determine whether they are helpful to patients long term and in the home environment, said Dr. Brinkmann.

The investigators and Dr. Brinkmann have disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

A wrist-worn device that uses machine learning accurately detects different seizure types. The new findings have the potential to revolutionize the management of patients with epilepsy, according to the researchers. “We have set a first benchmark for automatic detection of a variety of epileptic seizures using wearable sensors and deep-learning algorithms. In other words, we have shown for the first time that it’s possible to do this,” said study investigator Jianbin Tang, MA, data science project lead, IBM Research Australia, Victoria.

The findings were presented at the American Epilepsy Society’s annual meeting, held online this year because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Accurate monitoring of seizures is important for assessing risk, injury prevention, and treatment response evaluation. Currently, video EEG is the gold standard for seizure detection, but it requires a hospital stay, is often costly, and can be stigmatizing, said Mr. Tang.
 

An advance in detecting seizure types

Recent advances in non-EEG wearable devices show promise in detecting generalized onset tonic-clonic and focal to bilateral tonic-clonic seizures, but it’s not clear if they have the ability to detect other seizure types. “We hope to fill this gap by expanding wearable seizure detection to additional seizure types,” said Mr. Tang.

Seizure tracking outside the hospital setting largely “relies on manually annotated family and patient reports, which often can be unreliable due to missed seizures and problems recalling seizures,” he said.

The study included 75 children (44% were female; mean age was 11.1 years) admitted to a long-term EEG monitoring unit at a single center for a 24-hour stay. Patients wore the detector on the ankle or wrist. The device continuously collected data on functions such as sweating, heart rate, movement, and temperature.

With part of the dataset, researchers trained deep-learning algorithms to automatically detect seizure segments. They then validated the performance of the detection algorithms on the remainder of the dataset.

The analysis was based on data from 722 epileptic seizures of all types including focal and generalized, motor and nonmotor. Seizures occurred throughout the day and during the night while patients were awake or asleep.

When a seizure is detected, the system triggers a real-time alert and will store the information about the detected seizure in a repository, said Mr. Tang.

The signals were initially stored in the wristband and then securely uploaded to the Cloud. From there, the signal files were downloaded by the investigators for analysis and interpretation. All data were entirely anonymized and de-identified. Researchers used Area Under Curve–Receiver Operating Characteristic (AUC-ROC) to assess performance.

“Our best performing detection models reach an AUC-ROC of 67.59%, which represents a decent performance level,” said Mr. Tang. “There certainly is room for performance improvement and we are already working on this,” he added.  

The device performed “better than chance,” which is a “standard technical term” in the field of machine learning and is “the first hurdle any machine-learning model needs to take to be considered useful.” The investigators noted that such automatic seizure detection “is feasible across a broad spectrum of epileptic seizure types,” said Mr. Tang. “This is a first and has not been shown before.”

The study suggests that the noninvasive wearable device could be used at home, at school, and in other everyday settings outside the clinic. “This could one day provide patients, caregivers, and clinicians with reliable seizure reports,” said Mr. Tang.

He said he believes the device might be especially useful in detecting frequent or subtle seizures, which are easy to miss. Patients requiring medication evaluation and rescue medication and those at risk of status epilepticus may be good candidates.

The researchers don’t expect wearable technology to totally replace EEG but see it as “a useful complementary tool to track seizures continuously at times or in settings where EEG monitoring is not available,” said Mr. Tang.
 

‘Important milestone’

Commenting on the research, Benjamin H. Brinkmann, PhD, associate professor of neurology at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., said the investigators “have done very good work applying state of the art machine learning techniques” to the “important problem” of accurately detecting seizures.

Dr. Brinkmann is part of the Epilepsy Foundation–sponsored “My Seizure Gauge” project that’s evaluating various wearable devices, including the Empatica E4 wristband and the Fitbit Charge 3, to determine what measurements are needed for reliable seizure forecasting.

“Previously, no one knew whether seizure prediction was possible with these devices, and the fact that this group was able to achieve ‘better-than-chance’ prediction accuracy is an important milestone.”

However, he emphasized that there is still a great deal of work to be done to determine, for example, if seizure prediction with these devices can be accurate enough to be clinically useful. “For example, if the system generates too many false-positive predictions, patients won’t use it.”

In addition, the findings need to be replicated and recordings extended to 6 months or more to determine whether they are helpful to patients long term and in the home environment, said Dr. Brinkmann.

The investigators and Dr. Brinkmann have disclosed having no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

More women with early-stage breast cancer may safely forgo chemotherapy, suggests an interim analysis of the large-scale phase 3 RxPONDER trial, presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2020.

The investigators reported that adding chemotherapy to endocrine therapy did not improve outcomes for postmenopausal women with low-risk, node-positive, hormone receptor–positive (HR+), HER2-negative (HER2–) breast cancer in comparison with endocrine therapy alone.

These results are akin to those from the TAILORx trial. The results of that trial were first presented in 2018 and have changed practice for women with early-stage disease who have no lymph node involvement.

Clinicians celebrated the new results for women with lymph node–positive disease.

“RxPonder: practice changing!!!” tweeted meeting attendee Sarah Sammons, MD, Duke Cancer Center, Durham, N.C.

“Data from RxPonder are the most clinically important this year at @SABCSSanAntonio,” tweeted Hal Burstein, MD, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, who was not involved in the study.

“This will save tens of thousands of women the time, expense, and potentially harmful side effects that can be associated with chemotherapy infusions,” asserted study lead author Kevin Kalinsky, MD, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, during a meeting press conference.

But the trial, run by the SWOG Cancer Research Network, was not without controversy.

That’s because the trial also included premenopausal women whose disease characteristics were the same and who were found to have benefited from chemotherapy.

It was not clear whether the benefit was from chemotherapy’s cytotoxicity or its endocrine effects/ovarian suppression (which limits the production of estrogen, a breast cell stimulant) in these young women. But multiple experts asserted that the effect was very likely from ovarian suppression.

“There are less toxic ways than chemo to suppress ovarian function,” tweeted Tatiana Prowell, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who is not a study investigator.

Some experts strongly doubted the findings in premenopausal women.

“I hate to come away with the message that all [low-risk, node-positive] premenopausal patients should get chemotherapy,” summarized C. Kent Osborne, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, who is codirector of SABCS and was not involved in the study.

RxPONDER will follow patients for 15 years, so additional data and insights will follow, observed SWOG in a press statement.
 

Women had limited positive nodes

RxPONDER, or SWOG S1007, involved more than 5000 women who had HR+, HER2– breast cancer with involvement of one to three lymph nodes. The patients’ recurrence score was ≤25 on a 21-tumor gene expression assay (Oncotype Dx), which is characterized as low risk.

Approximately 20% of U.S. women with nonmetastatic HR+, HER2– breast cancer present with involvement of one to three lymph nodes, Dr. Kalinsky noted.

Study participants were randomly assigned to receive either standard chemotherapy plus endocrine therapy or endocrine therapy alone. Follow-up was for a median of 5 years before the current preplanned analysis.

Over a median follow-up of 5.1 years, there were 447 observed invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) events, the primary endpoint, which is 54% of the expected number at final analysis.

Across the whole cohort, adding chemotherapy to endocrine therapy was associated with a significant improvement in IDFS, with a 5-year rate of 92.4% vs 91.0% for endocrine therapy (P = .026).

Among the postmenopausal women, no such improvement was seen. The 5-year IDFS rate was 91.6% with chemotherapy plus endocrine therapy and 91.9% with endocrine therapy alone (P = .82).

Among premenopausal women, there was improvement in IDFS. The 5-year rate was 94.2% with chemotherapy plus endocrine therapy and 89.0% for endocrine therapy alone (P = .0004).

These differences were reflected in the results for overall survival. For postmenopausal women, there was a nonsignificant difference in 5-year overall survival rates (96.2% vs. 96.1%).

On the other hand, for premenopausal women, there was a significant difference in 5-year overall survival rates (98.6% vs. 97.3%; P = .032).

Stratifying patients by recurrence score, 0-13 versus 14-25, and by involvement of one versus two to three nodes did not have a major impact on the results, said Dr. Kalinsky, who also noted that future analyses will include quality of life and other outcomes.
 

More about endocrine therapy in RxPONDER

Dr. Osborne said that premenopausal women in RxPONDER were “nearly always” prescribed tamoxifen.

However, he observed that the current standard approach to treatment in this age group would be ovarian suppression plus either an aromatase inhibitor or tamoxifen, “both of which have been shown to be superior to tamoxifen alone in this subgroup.

“Since the adjuvant chemotherapy causes ovarian suppression in many premenopausal patients,” he said, “these patients then, in fact, received ovarian suppression plus tamoxifen,” rather than tamoxifen alone for the group that did not receive chemotherapy.

Dr. Osborne asked a question that came up again and again during the postpresentation discussion: “Is the difference in outcome in this subset due to the endocrine effects of chemotherapy? Unfortunately, we may never know the answer to this question,” he said.

Dr. Kalinsky replied that whether the difference in benefit of chemotherapy in premenopausal women “was a direct benefit, meaning that there’s something about the biology difference” between tumors in premenopausal versus postmenopausal women, “or whether this was an indirect effect, meaning impacting rates of amenorrhea... is not specifically how this study was designed.”

However, an exploratory landmark analysis at 6 months suggested that the use of ovarian suppression with endocrine therapy did not have an effect on outcomes.

Dr. Osborne said he is nevertheless “still skeptical that chemotherapy works differently in premenopausal women. Until we show that it’s not an endocrine effect ... I just can’t imagine why that group of patients, even the ones with very low Oncotype [score], would have a different response to chemotherapy.”

He added: “If I can think of a rationale ... I would believe it, but right now, I’m a little bit skeptical.”

Virginia Kaklamani, MD, of the University of Texas Health San Antonio Cancer Center, San Antonio, who is a meeting codirector, said she wanted to “second that.

“I honestly think that this is an OFS [ovarian function suppression effect] that we are seeing. We have several clinical trials that have been done looking at ovarian function suppression versus not ... showing that [it] can help as much as chemotherapy.”

Dr. Kaklamani continued: “Unfortunately, the arms to those trials were not perfect for now, and this is going to be an unanswered question until we have a large trial comparing OFS to chemotherapy.”

The study was sponsored by the National Cancer Institute, the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Research Program, the Hope Foundation for Cancer Research, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and Exact Sciences. Dr. Kalinsky, Dr. Osborne, and Dr. Kaklamani report financial ties to multiple pharmaceutical companies.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

More women with early-stage breast cancer may safely forgo chemotherapy, suggests an interim analysis of the large-scale phase 3 RxPONDER trial, presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2020.

The investigators reported that adding chemotherapy to endocrine therapy did not improve outcomes for postmenopausal women with low-risk, node-positive, hormone receptor–positive (HR+), HER2-negative (HER2–) breast cancer in comparison with endocrine therapy alone.

These results are akin to those from the TAILORx trial. The results of that trial were first presented in 2018 and have changed practice for women with early-stage disease who have no lymph node involvement.

Clinicians celebrated the new results for women with lymph node–positive disease.

“RxPonder: practice changing!!!” tweeted meeting attendee Sarah Sammons, MD, Duke Cancer Center, Durham, N.C.

“Data from RxPonder are the most clinically important this year at @SABCSSanAntonio,” tweeted Hal Burstein, MD, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, who was not involved in the study.

“This will save tens of thousands of women the time, expense, and potentially harmful side effects that can be associated with chemotherapy infusions,” asserted study lead author Kevin Kalinsky, MD, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, during a meeting press conference.

But the trial, run by the SWOG Cancer Research Network, was not without controversy.

That’s because the trial also included premenopausal women whose disease characteristics were the same and who were found to have benefited from chemotherapy.

It was not clear whether the benefit was from chemotherapy’s cytotoxicity or its endocrine effects/ovarian suppression (which limits the production of estrogen, a breast cell stimulant) in these young women. But multiple experts asserted that the effect was very likely from ovarian suppression.

“There are less toxic ways than chemo to suppress ovarian function,” tweeted Tatiana Prowell, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who is not a study investigator.

Some experts strongly doubted the findings in premenopausal women.

“I hate to come away with the message that all [low-risk, node-positive] premenopausal patients should get chemotherapy,” summarized C. Kent Osborne, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, who is codirector of SABCS and was not involved in the study.

RxPONDER will follow patients for 15 years, so additional data and insights will follow, observed SWOG in a press statement.
 

Women had limited positive nodes

RxPONDER, or SWOG S1007, involved more than 5000 women who had HR+, HER2– breast cancer with involvement of one to three lymph nodes. The patients’ recurrence score was ≤25 on a 21-tumor gene expression assay (Oncotype Dx), which is characterized as low risk.

Approximately 20% of U.S. women with nonmetastatic HR+, HER2– breast cancer present with involvement of one to three lymph nodes, Dr. Kalinsky noted.

Study participants were randomly assigned to receive either standard chemotherapy plus endocrine therapy or endocrine therapy alone. Follow-up was for a median of 5 years before the current preplanned analysis.

Over a median follow-up of 5.1 years, there were 447 observed invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) events, the primary endpoint, which is 54% of the expected number at final analysis.

Across the whole cohort, adding chemotherapy to endocrine therapy was associated with a significant improvement in IDFS, with a 5-year rate of 92.4% vs 91.0% for endocrine therapy (P = .026).

Among the postmenopausal women, no such improvement was seen. The 5-year IDFS rate was 91.6% with chemotherapy plus endocrine therapy and 91.9% with endocrine therapy alone (P = .82).

Among premenopausal women, there was improvement in IDFS. The 5-year rate was 94.2% with chemotherapy plus endocrine therapy and 89.0% for endocrine therapy alone (P = .0004).

These differences were reflected in the results for overall survival. For postmenopausal women, there was a nonsignificant difference in 5-year overall survival rates (96.2% vs. 96.1%).

On the other hand, for premenopausal women, there was a significant difference in 5-year overall survival rates (98.6% vs. 97.3%; P = .032).

Stratifying patients by recurrence score, 0-13 versus 14-25, and by involvement of one versus two to three nodes did not have a major impact on the results, said Dr. Kalinsky, who also noted that future analyses will include quality of life and other outcomes.
 

More about endocrine therapy in RxPONDER

Dr. Osborne said that premenopausal women in RxPONDER were “nearly always” prescribed tamoxifen.

However, he observed that the current standard approach to treatment in this age group would be ovarian suppression plus either an aromatase inhibitor or tamoxifen, “both of which have been shown to be superior to tamoxifen alone in this subgroup.

“Since the adjuvant chemotherapy causes ovarian suppression in many premenopausal patients,” he said, “these patients then, in fact, received ovarian suppression plus tamoxifen,” rather than tamoxifen alone for the group that did not receive chemotherapy.

Dr. Osborne asked a question that came up again and again during the postpresentation discussion: “Is the difference in outcome in this subset due to the endocrine effects of chemotherapy? Unfortunately, we may never know the answer to this question,” he said.

Dr. Kalinsky replied that whether the difference in benefit of chemotherapy in premenopausal women “was a direct benefit, meaning that there’s something about the biology difference” between tumors in premenopausal versus postmenopausal women, “or whether this was an indirect effect, meaning impacting rates of amenorrhea... is not specifically how this study was designed.”

However, an exploratory landmark analysis at 6 months suggested that the use of ovarian suppression with endocrine therapy did not have an effect on outcomes.

Dr. Osborne said he is nevertheless “still skeptical that chemotherapy works differently in premenopausal women. Until we show that it’s not an endocrine effect ... I just can’t imagine why that group of patients, even the ones with very low Oncotype [score], would have a different response to chemotherapy.”

He added: “If I can think of a rationale ... I would believe it, but right now, I’m a little bit skeptical.”

Virginia Kaklamani, MD, of the University of Texas Health San Antonio Cancer Center, San Antonio, who is a meeting codirector, said she wanted to “second that.

“I honestly think that this is an OFS [ovarian function suppression effect] that we are seeing. We have several clinical trials that have been done looking at ovarian function suppression versus not ... showing that [it] can help as much as chemotherapy.”

Dr. Kaklamani continued: “Unfortunately, the arms to those trials were not perfect for now, and this is going to be an unanswered question until we have a large trial comparing OFS to chemotherapy.”

The study was sponsored by the National Cancer Institute, the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Research Program, the Hope Foundation for Cancer Research, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and Exact Sciences. Dr. Kalinsky, Dr. Osborne, and Dr. Kaklamani report financial ties to multiple pharmaceutical companies.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

More women with early-stage breast cancer may safely forgo chemotherapy, suggests an interim analysis of the large-scale phase 3 RxPONDER trial, presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium 2020.

The investigators reported that adding chemotherapy to endocrine therapy did not improve outcomes for postmenopausal women with low-risk, node-positive, hormone receptor–positive (HR+), HER2-negative (HER2–) breast cancer in comparison with endocrine therapy alone.

These results are akin to those from the TAILORx trial. The results of that trial were first presented in 2018 and have changed practice for women with early-stage disease who have no lymph node involvement.

Clinicians celebrated the new results for women with lymph node–positive disease.

“RxPonder: practice changing!!!” tweeted meeting attendee Sarah Sammons, MD, Duke Cancer Center, Durham, N.C.

“Data from RxPonder are the most clinically important this year at @SABCSSanAntonio,” tweeted Hal Burstein, MD, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, who was not involved in the study.

“This will save tens of thousands of women the time, expense, and potentially harmful side effects that can be associated with chemotherapy infusions,” asserted study lead author Kevin Kalinsky, MD, Winship Cancer Institute of Emory University, Atlanta, during a meeting press conference.

But the trial, run by the SWOG Cancer Research Network, was not without controversy.

That’s because the trial also included premenopausal women whose disease characteristics were the same and who were found to have benefited from chemotherapy.

It was not clear whether the benefit was from chemotherapy’s cytotoxicity or its endocrine effects/ovarian suppression (which limits the production of estrogen, a breast cell stimulant) in these young women. But multiple experts asserted that the effect was very likely from ovarian suppression.

“There are less toxic ways than chemo to suppress ovarian function,” tweeted Tatiana Prowell, MD, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, who is not a study investigator.

Some experts strongly doubted the findings in premenopausal women.

“I hate to come away with the message that all [low-risk, node-positive] premenopausal patients should get chemotherapy,” summarized C. Kent Osborne, MD, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, who is codirector of SABCS and was not involved in the study.

RxPONDER will follow patients for 15 years, so additional data and insights will follow, observed SWOG in a press statement.
 

Women had limited positive nodes

RxPONDER, or SWOG S1007, involved more than 5000 women who had HR+, HER2– breast cancer with involvement of one to three lymph nodes. The patients’ recurrence score was ≤25 on a 21-tumor gene expression assay (Oncotype Dx), which is characterized as low risk.

Approximately 20% of U.S. women with nonmetastatic HR+, HER2– breast cancer present with involvement of one to three lymph nodes, Dr. Kalinsky noted.

Study participants were randomly assigned to receive either standard chemotherapy plus endocrine therapy or endocrine therapy alone. Follow-up was for a median of 5 years before the current preplanned analysis.

Over a median follow-up of 5.1 years, there were 447 observed invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) events, the primary endpoint, which is 54% of the expected number at final analysis.

Across the whole cohort, adding chemotherapy to endocrine therapy was associated with a significant improvement in IDFS, with a 5-year rate of 92.4% vs 91.0% for endocrine therapy (P = .026).

Among the postmenopausal women, no such improvement was seen. The 5-year IDFS rate was 91.6% with chemotherapy plus endocrine therapy and 91.9% with endocrine therapy alone (P = .82).

Among premenopausal women, there was improvement in IDFS. The 5-year rate was 94.2% with chemotherapy plus endocrine therapy and 89.0% for endocrine therapy alone (P = .0004).

These differences were reflected in the results for overall survival. For postmenopausal women, there was a nonsignificant difference in 5-year overall survival rates (96.2% vs. 96.1%).

On the other hand, for premenopausal women, there was a significant difference in 5-year overall survival rates (98.6% vs. 97.3%; P = .032).

Stratifying patients by recurrence score, 0-13 versus 14-25, and by involvement of one versus two to three nodes did not have a major impact on the results, said Dr. Kalinsky, who also noted that future analyses will include quality of life and other outcomes.
 

More about endocrine therapy in RxPONDER

Dr. Osborne said that premenopausal women in RxPONDER were “nearly always” prescribed tamoxifen.

However, he observed that the current standard approach to treatment in this age group would be ovarian suppression plus either an aromatase inhibitor or tamoxifen, “both of which have been shown to be superior to tamoxifen alone in this subgroup.

“Since the adjuvant chemotherapy causes ovarian suppression in many premenopausal patients,” he said, “these patients then, in fact, received ovarian suppression plus tamoxifen,” rather than tamoxifen alone for the group that did not receive chemotherapy.

Dr. Osborne asked a question that came up again and again during the postpresentation discussion: “Is the difference in outcome in this subset due to the endocrine effects of chemotherapy? Unfortunately, we may never know the answer to this question,” he said.

Dr. Kalinsky replied that whether the difference in benefit of chemotherapy in premenopausal women “was a direct benefit, meaning that there’s something about the biology difference” between tumors in premenopausal versus postmenopausal women, “or whether this was an indirect effect, meaning impacting rates of amenorrhea... is not specifically how this study was designed.”

However, an exploratory landmark analysis at 6 months suggested that the use of ovarian suppression with endocrine therapy did not have an effect on outcomes.

Dr. Osborne said he is nevertheless “still skeptical that chemotherapy works differently in premenopausal women. Until we show that it’s not an endocrine effect ... I just can’t imagine why that group of patients, even the ones with very low Oncotype [score], would have a different response to chemotherapy.”

He added: “If I can think of a rationale ... I would believe it, but right now, I’m a little bit skeptical.”

Virginia Kaklamani, MD, of the University of Texas Health San Antonio Cancer Center, San Antonio, who is a meeting codirector, said she wanted to “second that.

“I honestly think that this is an OFS [ovarian function suppression effect] that we are seeing. We have several clinical trials that have been done looking at ovarian function suppression versus not ... showing that [it] can help as much as chemotherapy.”

Dr. Kaklamani continued: “Unfortunately, the arms to those trials were not perfect for now, and this is going to be an unanswered question until we have a large trial comparing OFS to chemotherapy.”

The study was sponsored by the National Cancer Institute, the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Research Program, the Hope Foundation for Cancer Research, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and Exact Sciences. Dr. Kalinsky, Dr. Osborne, and Dr. Kaklamani report financial ties to multiple pharmaceutical companies.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

With U.S. approval of one coronavirus vaccine likely imminent and approval of a second one expected soon after, physicians will likely be deluged with questions. Public attitudes about the vaccines vary by demographics, with a recent poll showing that men and older adults are more likely to choose vaccination, and women and people of color evincing more wariness.

Although the reasons for reluctance may vary, questions from patient will likely be similar. Some are related to the “warp speed” language about the vaccines. Other concerns arise from the fact that the platform – mRNA – has not been used in human vaccines before. And as with any vaccine, there are rumors and false claims making the rounds on social media.

In anticipation of the most common questions physicians may encounter, two experts, Krutika Kuppalli, MD, assistant professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, and Angela Rasmussen, PhD, virologist and nonresident affiliate at Georgetown University’s Center for Global Health Science and Security, Washington, talked in an interview about what clinicians can expect and what evidence-based – as well as compassionate – answers might look like.
 

Q: Will this vaccine give me COVID-19?

“There is not an intact virus in there,” Dr. Rasmussen said. The mRNA-based vaccines cannot cause COVID-19 because they don’t use any part of the coronavirus itself. Instead, the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines contain manufactured mRNA molecules that carry the instructions for building the virus’ spike protein. After vaccine administration, the recipient’s own cells take up this mRNA, use it to build this bit of protein, and display it on their surfaces. The foreign protein flag triggers the immune system response.

The mRNA does not enter the cell nucleus or interact with the recipient’s DNA. And because it’s so fragile, it degrades quite quickly. To keep that from happening before cell entry, the mRNAs are cushioned in protective fats.

Q: Was this vaccine made too quickly?

“People have been working on this platform for 30 years, so it’s not that this is brand new,” Dr. Kuppalli said.

Researchers began working on mRNA vaccines in the 1990s. Technological developments in the last decade have meant that their use has become feasible, and they have been tested in animals against many viral diseases. The mRNA vaccines are attractive because they’re expected to be safe and easily manufactured from common materials. That’s what we’ve seen in the COVID-19 pandemic, the  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says on its website. Design of the spike protein mRNA component began as soon as the viral genome became available in January.

Usually, rolling out a vaccine takes years, so less than a year under a program called Operation Warp Speed can seem like moving too fast, Dr. Rasmussen acknowledged. “The name has given people the impression that by going at warp speed, we’re cutting all the corners. [But] the reality is that Operation Warp Speed is mostly for manufacturing and distribution.”

What underlies the speed is a restructuring of the normal vaccine development process, Dr. Kuppalli said. The same phases of development – animal testing, a small initial human phase, a second for safety testing, a third large phase for efficacy – were all conducted as for any vaccine. But in this case, some phases were completed in parallel, rather than sequentially. This approach has proved so successful that there is already talk about making it the model for developing future vaccines.

Two other factors contributed to the speed, said Dr. Kuppalli and Dr. Rasmussen. First, gearing up production can slow a rollout, but with these vaccines, companies ramped up production even before anyone knew if the vaccines would work – the “warp speed” part. The second factor has been the large number of cases, making exposures more likely and thus accelerating the results of the efficacy trials. “There is so much COVID being transmitted everywhere in the United States that it did not take long to hit the threshold of events to read out phase 3,” Dr. Rasmussen said.

Q: This vaccine has never been used in humans. How do we know it’s safe?

The Pfizer phase 3 trial included more than 43,000 people, and Moderna’s had more than 30,000. The first humans received mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines in March. The most common adverse events emerge right after a vaccination, Dr. Kuppalli said.

As with any vaccine that gains approval, monitoring will continue.

UK health officials have reported that two health care workers vaccinated in the initial rollout of the Pfizer vaccine had what seems to have been a severe allergic response. Both recipients had a history of anaphylactic allergic responses and carried EpiPens, and both recovered. During the trial, allergic reaction rates were 0.63% in the vaccine group and 0.51% in the placebo group.

As a result of the two reactions, UK regulators are now recommending that patients with a history of severe allergies not receive the vaccine at the current time.

Q: What are the likely side effects?

So far, the most common side effects are pain at the injection site and an achy, flu-like feeling, Dr. Kuppalli said. More severe reactions have been reported, but were not common in the trials.

Dr. Rasmussen noted that the common side effects are a good sign, and signal that the recipient is generating “a robust immune response.”

“Everybody I’ve talked to who’s had the response has said they would go through it again,” Dr. Kruppalli said. “I definitely plan on lining up and being one of the first people to get the vaccine.”

Q: I already had COVID-19 or had a positive antibody test. Do I still need to get the vaccine?

Dr. Rasmussen said that there are “too many unknowns” to say if a history of COVID-19 would make a difference. “We don’t know how long neutralizing antibodies last” after infection, she said. “What we know is that the vaccine tends to produce antibody titers towards the higher end of the spectrum,” suggesting better immunity with vaccination than after natural infection.

Q: Can patients of color feel safe getting the vaccine?

“People of color might be understandably reluctant to take a vaccine that was developed in a way that appears to be faster [than past development],” said Dr. Rasmussen. She said physicians should acknowledge and understand the history that has led them to feel that way, “everything from Tuskegee to Henrietta Lacks to today.”

Empathy is key, and “providers should meet patients where they are and not condescend to them.”

Dr. Kuppalli agreed. “Clinicians really need to work on trying to strip away their biases.”

Thus far there are no safety signals that differ by race or ethnicity, according to the companies. The Pfizer phase 3 trial enrolled just over 9% Black participants, 0.5% Native American/Alaska Native, 0.2% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 2.3% multiracial participants, and 28% Hispanic/Latinx. For its part, Moderna says that approximately 37% of participants in its phase 3 trial come from communities of color.

Q: What about children and pregnant women?

Although the trials included participants from many different age groups and backgrounds, children and pregnant or lactating women were not among them. Pfizer gained approval in October to include participants as young as age 12 years, and a Moderna spokesperson said in an interview that the company planned pediatric inclusion at the end of 2020, pending approval.

“Unfortunately, we don’t have data on pregnant and lactating women,” Dr. Kuppalli said. She said she hopes that public health organizations such as the CDC will address that in the coming weeks. Dr. Rasmussen called the lack of data in pregnant women and children “a big oversight.”

Dr. Rasmussen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kuppalli is a consultant with GlaxoSmithKline.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

With U.S. approval of one coronavirus vaccine likely imminent and approval of a second one expected soon after, physicians will likely be deluged with questions. Public attitudes about the vaccines vary by demographics, with a recent poll showing that men and older adults are more likely to choose vaccination, and women and people of color evincing more wariness.

Although the reasons for reluctance may vary, questions from patient will likely be similar. Some are related to the “warp speed” language about the vaccines. Other concerns arise from the fact that the platform – mRNA – has not been used in human vaccines before. And as with any vaccine, there are rumors and false claims making the rounds on social media.

In anticipation of the most common questions physicians may encounter, two experts, Krutika Kuppalli, MD, assistant professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, and Angela Rasmussen, PhD, virologist and nonresident affiliate at Georgetown University’s Center for Global Health Science and Security, Washington, talked in an interview about what clinicians can expect and what evidence-based – as well as compassionate – answers might look like.
 

Q: Will this vaccine give me COVID-19?

“There is not an intact virus in there,” Dr. Rasmussen said. The mRNA-based vaccines cannot cause COVID-19 because they don’t use any part of the coronavirus itself. Instead, the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines contain manufactured mRNA molecules that carry the instructions for building the virus’ spike protein. After vaccine administration, the recipient’s own cells take up this mRNA, use it to build this bit of protein, and display it on their surfaces. The foreign protein flag triggers the immune system response.

The mRNA does not enter the cell nucleus or interact with the recipient’s DNA. And because it’s so fragile, it degrades quite quickly. To keep that from happening before cell entry, the mRNAs are cushioned in protective fats.

Q: Was this vaccine made too quickly?

“People have been working on this platform for 30 years, so it’s not that this is brand new,” Dr. Kuppalli said.

Researchers began working on mRNA vaccines in the 1990s. Technological developments in the last decade have meant that their use has become feasible, and they have been tested in animals against many viral diseases. The mRNA vaccines are attractive because they’re expected to be safe and easily manufactured from common materials. That’s what we’ve seen in the COVID-19 pandemic, the  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says on its website. Design of the spike protein mRNA component began as soon as the viral genome became available in January.

Usually, rolling out a vaccine takes years, so less than a year under a program called Operation Warp Speed can seem like moving too fast, Dr. Rasmussen acknowledged. “The name has given people the impression that by going at warp speed, we’re cutting all the corners. [But] the reality is that Operation Warp Speed is mostly for manufacturing and distribution.”

What underlies the speed is a restructuring of the normal vaccine development process, Dr. Kuppalli said. The same phases of development – animal testing, a small initial human phase, a second for safety testing, a third large phase for efficacy – were all conducted as for any vaccine. But in this case, some phases were completed in parallel, rather than sequentially. This approach has proved so successful that there is already talk about making it the model for developing future vaccines.

Two other factors contributed to the speed, said Dr. Kuppalli and Dr. Rasmussen. First, gearing up production can slow a rollout, but with these vaccines, companies ramped up production even before anyone knew if the vaccines would work – the “warp speed” part. The second factor has been the large number of cases, making exposures more likely and thus accelerating the results of the efficacy trials. “There is so much COVID being transmitted everywhere in the United States that it did not take long to hit the threshold of events to read out phase 3,” Dr. Rasmussen said.

Q: This vaccine has never been used in humans. How do we know it’s safe?

The Pfizer phase 3 trial included more than 43,000 people, and Moderna’s had more than 30,000. The first humans received mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines in March. The most common adverse events emerge right after a vaccination, Dr. Kuppalli said.

As with any vaccine that gains approval, monitoring will continue.

UK health officials have reported that two health care workers vaccinated in the initial rollout of the Pfizer vaccine had what seems to have been a severe allergic response. Both recipients had a history of anaphylactic allergic responses and carried EpiPens, and both recovered. During the trial, allergic reaction rates were 0.63% in the vaccine group and 0.51% in the placebo group.

As a result of the two reactions, UK regulators are now recommending that patients with a history of severe allergies not receive the vaccine at the current time.

Q: What are the likely side effects?

So far, the most common side effects are pain at the injection site and an achy, flu-like feeling, Dr. Kuppalli said. More severe reactions have been reported, but were not common in the trials.

Dr. Rasmussen noted that the common side effects are a good sign, and signal that the recipient is generating “a robust immune response.”

“Everybody I’ve talked to who’s had the response has said they would go through it again,” Dr. Kruppalli said. “I definitely plan on lining up and being one of the first people to get the vaccine.”

Q: I already had COVID-19 or had a positive antibody test. Do I still need to get the vaccine?

Dr. Rasmussen said that there are “too many unknowns” to say if a history of COVID-19 would make a difference. “We don’t know how long neutralizing antibodies last” after infection, she said. “What we know is that the vaccine tends to produce antibody titers towards the higher end of the spectrum,” suggesting better immunity with vaccination than after natural infection.

Q: Can patients of color feel safe getting the vaccine?

“People of color might be understandably reluctant to take a vaccine that was developed in a way that appears to be faster [than past development],” said Dr. Rasmussen. She said physicians should acknowledge and understand the history that has led them to feel that way, “everything from Tuskegee to Henrietta Lacks to today.”

Empathy is key, and “providers should meet patients where they are and not condescend to them.”

Dr. Kuppalli agreed. “Clinicians really need to work on trying to strip away their biases.”

Thus far there are no safety signals that differ by race or ethnicity, according to the companies. The Pfizer phase 3 trial enrolled just over 9% Black participants, 0.5% Native American/Alaska Native, 0.2% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 2.3% multiracial participants, and 28% Hispanic/Latinx. For its part, Moderna says that approximately 37% of participants in its phase 3 trial come from communities of color.

Q: What about children and pregnant women?

Although the trials included participants from many different age groups and backgrounds, children and pregnant or lactating women were not among them. Pfizer gained approval in October to include participants as young as age 12 years, and a Moderna spokesperson said in an interview that the company planned pediatric inclusion at the end of 2020, pending approval.

“Unfortunately, we don’t have data on pregnant and lactating women,” Dr. Kuppalli said. She said she hopes that public health organizations such as the CDC will address that in the coming weeks. Dr. Rasmussen called the lack of data in pregnant women and children “a big oversight.”

Dr. Rasmussen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kuppalli is a consultant with GlaxoSmithKline.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

With U.S. approval of one coronavirus vaccine likely imminent and approval of a second one expected soon after, physicians will likely be deluged with questions. Public attitudes about the vaccines vary by demographics, with a recent poll showing that men and older adults are more likely to choose vaccination, and women and people of color evincing more wariness.

Although the reasons for reluctance may vary, questions from patient will likely be similar. Some are related to the “warp speed” language about the vaccines. Other concerns arise from the fact that the platform – mRNA – has not been used in human vaccines before. And as with any vaccine, there are rumors and false claims making the rounds on social media.

In anticipation of the most common questions physicians may encounter, two experts, Krutika Kuppalli, MD, assistant professor of medicine in the division of infectious diseases at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, and Angela Rasmussen, PhD, virologist and nonresident affiliate at Georgetown University’s Center for Global Health Science and Security, Washington, talked in an interview about what clinicians can expect and what evidence-based – as well as compassionate – answers might look like.
 

Q: Will this vaccine give me COVID-19?

“There is not an intact virus in there,” Dr. Rasmussen said. The mRNA-based vaccines cannot cause COVID-19 because they don’t use any part of the coronavirus itself. Instead, the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines contain manufactured mRNA molecules that carry the instructions for building the virus’ spike protein. After vaccine administration, the recipient’s own cells take up this mRNA, use it to build this bit of protein, and display it on their surfaces. The foreign protein flag triggers the immune system response.

The mRNA does not enter the cell nucleus or interact with the recipient’s DNA. And because it’s so fragile, it degrades quite quickly. To keep that from happening before cell entry, the mRNAs are cushioned in protective fats.

Q: Was this vaccine made too quickly?

“People have been working on this platform for 30 years, so it’s not that this is brand new,” Dr. Kuppalli said.

Researchers began working on mRNA vaccines in the 1990s. Technological developments in the last decade have meant that their use has become feasible, and they have been tested in animals against many viral diseases. The mRNA vaccines are attractive because they’re expected to be safe and easily manufactured from common materials. That’s what we’ve seen in the COVID-19 pandemic, the  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says on its website. Design of the spike protein mRNA component began as soon as the viral genome became available in January.

Usually, rolling out a vaccine takes years, so less than a year under a program called Operation Warp Speed can seem like moving too fast, Dr. Rasmussen acknowledged. “The name has given people the impression that by going at warp speed, we’re cutting all the corners. [But] the reality is that Operation Warp Speed is mostly for manufacturing and distribution.”

What underlies the speed is a restructuring of the normal vaccine development process, Dr. Kuppalli said. The same phases of development – animal testing, a small initial human phase, a second for safety testing, a third large phase for efficacy – were all conducted as for any vaccine. But in this case, some phases were completed in parallel, rather than sequentially. This approach has proved so successful that there is already talk about making it the model for developing future vaccines.

Two other factors contributed to the speed, said Dr. Kuppalli and Dr. Rasmussen. First, gearing up production can slow a rollout, but with these vaccines, companies ramped up production even before anyone knew if the vaccines would work – the “warp speed” part. The second factor has been the large number of cases, making exposures more likely and thus accelerating the results of the efficacy trials. “There is so much COVID being transmitted everywhere in the United States that it did not take long to hit the threshold of events to read out phase 3,” Dr. Rasmussen said.

Q: This vaccine has never been used in humans. How do we know it’s safe?

The Pfizer phase 3 trial included more than 43,000 people, and Moderna’s had more than 30,000. The first humans received mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines in March. The most common adverse events emerge right after a vaccination, Dr. Kuppalli said.

As with any vaccine that gains approval, monitoring will continue.

UK health officials have reported that two health care workers vaccinated in the initial rollout of the Pfizer vaccine had what seems to have been a severe allergic response. Both recipients had a history of anaphylactic allergic responses and carried EpiPens, and both recovered. During the trial, allergic reaction rates were 0.63% in the vaccine group and 0.51% in the placebo group.

As a result of the two reactions, UK regulators are now recommending that patients with a history of severe allergies not receive the vaccine at the current time.

Q: What are the likely side effects?

So far, the most common side effects are pain at the injection site and an achy, flu-like feeling, Dr. Kuppalli said. More severe reactions have been reported, but were not common in the trials.

Dr. Rasmussen noted that the common side effects are a good sign, and signal that the recipient is generating “a robust immune response.”

“Everybody I’ve talked to who’s had the response has said they would go through it again,” Dr. Kruppalli said. “I definitely plan on lining up and being one of the first people to get the vaccine.”

Q: I already had COVID-19 or had a positive antibody test. Do I still need to get the vaccine?

Dr. Rasmussen said that there are “too many unknowns” to say if a history of COVID-19 would make a difference. “We don’t know how long neutralizing antibodies last” after infection, she said. “What we know is that the vaccine tends to produce antibody titers towards the higher end of the spectrum,” suggesting better immunity with vaccination than after natural infection.

Q: Can patients of color feel safe getting the vaccine?

“People of color might be understandably reluctant to take a vaccine that was developed in a way that appears to be faster [than past development],” said Dr. Rasmussen. She said physicians should acknowledge and understand the history that has led them to feel that way, “everything from Tuskegee to Henrietta Lacks to today.”

Empathy is key, and “providers should meet patients where they are and not condescend to them.”

Dr. Kuppalli agreed. “Clinicians really need to work on trying to strip away their biases.”

Thus far there are no safety signals that differ by race or ethnicity, according to the companies. The Pfizer phase 3 trial enrolled just over 9% Black participants, 0.5% Native American/Alaska Native, 0.2% Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, 2.3% multiracial participants, and 28% Hispanic/Latinx. For its part, Moderna says that approximately 37% of participants in its phase 3 trial come from communities of color.

Q: What about children and pregnant women?

Although the trials included participants from many different age groups and backgrounds, children and pregnant or lactating women were not among them. Pfizer gained approval in October to include participants as young as age 12 years, and a Moderna spokesperson said in an interview that the company planned pediatric inclusion at the end of 2020, pending approval.

“Unfortunately, we don’t have data on pregnant and lactating women,” Dr. Kuppalli said. She said she hopes that public health organizations such as the CDC will address that in the coming weeks. Dr. Rasmussen called the lack of data in pregnant women and children “a big oversight.”

Dr. Rasmussen has disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Kuppalli is a consultant with GlaxoSmithKline.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The majority of human cells, including skin and hair cells, keep their own time; that is, they manifest autonomous clocks and the genes that regulate their functioning.¹ During the day, one primary function of the skin is protection; at night, repairing any damage (particularly DNA impairment) incurred during the day prevails.^2-4 These activities are driven through circadian rhythms using clock genes that exist in all cutaneous cells.² Important cutaneous functions such as blood flow, transepidermal water loss, and capacitance are affected by circadian rhythms.⁵ Hydration and inflammation are also among the several functions pertaining to epidermal homeostasis affected by circadian rhythms.⁶ In addition, some collagens and extracellular matrix proteases are diurnally regulated, and approximately 10% of the transcriptome, including the extracellular matrix, is thought to be controlled by circadian rhythms.⁷

Emerging research on the circadian rhythms displayed in the skin yield implications related to skin care. Cutaneous cell migration and proliferation, wound healing, and tissue vulnerability to harm from UV exposure, oxidative stress, and protease activity, for example, are affected by circadian rhythms, Sherratt et al. noted in suggesting that chronotherapy presents promise for enhancing skin therapy.⁷ Indeed, recent research has led to the understanding that cutaneous aging, cellular repair, optimal timing for drug delivery to the skin, and skin cancer development are all affected by the chronobiological functioning of the skin.⁸

We have known for several years that certain types of products should be used at different times of the day. For instance, antioxidants should be used in the morning to protect skin from sun exposure and retinols should be used in the evening because of its induction of light sensitivity. The remainder of this column focuses on research in the last 2 decades that reinforces the notion of circadian rhythms working in the skin, and may alter how we view the timing of skin care. Next month’s column, part two on the circadian rhythms of the skin, will address recent clinical trials and the implications for timing treatments for certain cutaneous conditions.
 

Emerging data on the circadian rhythms of the skin

In 2001, Le Fur et al. studied the cutaneous circadian rhythms in the facial and forearm skin of eight healthy White women during a 48-hour period. They were able to detect such rhythms in facial sebum excretion, transepidermal water loss (TEWL) in the face and forearm, pH in the face, forearm skin temperature, and forearm capacitance using cosinor or analysis of variance methods. The investigators also observed 8- and 12-hour rhythms in TEWL in both areas, and 12 hours for forearm skin temperature. They verified that such rhythms could be measured and that they vary between skin sites. In addition, they were the first to show that ultradian and/or component rhythms can also be found in TEWL, sebum excretion, and skin temperature.⁹

A year later, Kawara et al. showed that mRNA of the circadian clock genes Per1, Clock, and bmal1/mop3 are expressed in normal human-cultured keratinocytes and that low-dose UVB down-regulates these genes and changes their express in keratinocyte cell cultures. They concluded that UV targeting of keratinocytes could alter circadian rhythms.¹⁰

In 2011, Spörl and colleagues characterized an in vitro functional cell autonomous circadian clock in adult human low calcium temperature keratinocytes, demonstrating that the molecular composition of the keratinocyte clock was comparable with peripheral tissue clocks. Notably, they observed that temperature acts as a robust time cue for epidermal traits, such as cholesterol homeostasis and differentiation.¹¹

The next year, Sandu et al. investigated the kinetics of clock gene expression in epidermal and dermal cells collected from the same donor and compared their characteristics. They were able to reveal the presence of functional circadian machinery in primary cultures of fibroblasts, keratinocytes, and melanocytes, with oscillators identified in all skin cell types and thought to be involved in spurring cutaneous rhythmic functions as they exhibited discrete periods and phase relationships between clock genes.¹²

Three years later, Sandu et al. characterized the circadian clocks in rat skin and dermal fibroblasts. They found that skin has a self-sustaining circadian clock that experiences age-dependent alterations, and that dermal fibroblasts manifest circadian rhythms that can be modulated by endogenous (e.g., melatonin) and exogenous (e.g., temperature) influences.¹³

In 2019, Park et al. demonstrated that the diurnal expression of the gene TIMP3, which is thought to evince a circadian rhythm in synchronized human keratinocytes, experiences disruptions in such rhythms by UVB exposure. The inflammation that results can be blocked, they argued, by recovering the circadian expression of TIMP3 using synthetic TIMP3 peptides or bioactive natural ingredients, such as green tea extracts.⁶

Conclusion

Circadian rhythms and the biological clocks by which most cells, including skin and hair cells, regulate themselves represent a ripe and fascinating area of research. Applying evidence in this realm to skin care has been occurring over time and is likely to enhance our practice even more as we continue to elucidate the behavior of cutaneous cells based on the solar day. Based on this information, my recommendations are to use antioxidants and protective products in the morning, and use DNA repair enzymes, retinoids, and other repair products at night.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Revance, Evolus, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions, a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at [email protected].

References

1. Dong K et al. Int J Mol Sci. 2020 Jan 3. doi: 10.3390/ijms21010326.

2. Dong K et al. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2019 Dec;41(6):558-62.

3. Lyons AB et al. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2019 Sep;12(9):42-5.

4. Wu G et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Nov 27;115(48):12313-8.

5. Vaughn AR et al. Pediatr Dermatol. 2018 Jan;35(1):152-7.

6. Park S et al. Int J Mol Sci. 2019 Feb 16. doi: 10.3390/ijms20040862.

7. Sherratt MJ et al. Matrix Biol. 2019 Nov;84:97-110.

8. Luber AJ et al. J Drugs Dermatol. 2014 Feb;13(2):130-4.

9. Le Fur I et al. J Invest Dermatol. 2001 Sep;117(3):718-24.

10. Kawara S et al. J Invest Dermatol. 2002 Dec;119(6):1220-3.

11. Spörl F et al. J Invest Dermatol. 2011 Feb;131(2):338-48.

12. Sandu C et al. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2012 Oct;69(19):3329-39.

13. Sandu C et al. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2015 Jun;72(11):2237-48.

The majority of human cells, including skin and hair cells, keep their own time; that is, they manifest autonomous clocks and the genes that regulate their functioning.¹ During the day, one primary function of the skin is protection; at night, repairing any damage (particularly DNA impairment) incurred during the day prevails.^2-4 These activities are driven through circadian rhythms using clock genes that exist in all cutaneous cells.² Important cutaneous functions such as blood flow, transepidermal water loss, and capacitance are affected by circadian rhythms.⁵ Hydration and inflammation are also among the several functions pertaining to epidermal homeostasis affected by circadian rhythms.⁶ In addition, some collagens and extracellular matrix proteases are diurnally regulated, and approximately 10% of the transcriptome, including the extracellular matrix, is thought to be controlled by circadian rhythms.⁷

Emerging research on the circadian rhythms displayed in the skin yield implications related to skin care. Cutaneous cell migration and proliferation, wound healing, and tissue vulnerability to harm from UV exposure, oxidative stress, and protease activity, for example, are affected by circadian rhythms, Sherratt et al. noted in suggesting that chronotherapy presents promise for enhancing skin therapy.⁷ Indeed, recent research has led to the understanding that cutaneous aging, cellular repair, optimal timing for drug delivery to the skin, and skin cancer development are all affected by the chronobiological functioning of the skin.⁸

We have known for several years that certain types of products should be used at different times of the day. For instance, antioxidants should be used in the morning to protect skin from sun exposure and retinols should be used in the evening because of its induction of light sensitivity. The remainder of this column focuses on research in the last 2 decades that reinforces the notion of circadian rhythms working in the skin, and may alter how we view the timing of skin care. Next month’s column, part two on the circadian rhythms of the skin, will address recent clinical trials and the implications for timing treatments for certain cutaneous conditions.
 

Emerging data on the circadian rhythms of the skin

In 2001, Le Fur et al. studied the cutaneous circadian rhythms in the facial and forearm skin of eight healthy White women during a 48-hour period. They were able to detect such rhythms in facial sebum excretion, transepidermal water loss (TEWL) in the face and forearm, pH in the face, forearm skin temperature, and forearm capacitance using cosinor or analysis of variance methods. The investigators also observed 8- and 12-hour rhythms in TEWL in both areas, and 12 hours for forearm skin temperature. They verified that such rhythms could be measured and that they vary between skin sites. In addition, they were the first to show that ultradian and/or component rhythms can also be found in TEWL, sebum excretion, and skin temperature.⁹

A year later, Kawara et al. showed that mRNA of the circadian clock genes Per1, Clock, and bmal1/mop3 are expressed in normal human-cultured keratinocytes and that low-dose UVB down-regulates these genes and changes their express in keratinocyte cell cultures. They concluded that UV targeting of keratinocytes could alter circadian rhythms.¹⁰

In 2011, Spörl and colleagues characterized an in vitro functional cell autonomous circadian clock in adult human low calcium temperature keratinocytes, demonstrating that the molecular composition of the keratinocyte clock was comparable with peripheral tissue clocks. Notably, they observed that temperature acts as a robust time cue for epidermal traits, such as cholesterol homeostasis and differentiation.¹¹

The next year, Sandu et al. investigated the kinetics of clock gene expression in epidermal and dermal cells collected from the same donor and compared their characteristics. They were able to reveal the presence of functional circadian machinery in primary cultures of fibroblasts, keratinocytes, and melanocytes, with oscillators identified in all skin cell types and thought to be involved in spurring cutaneous rhythmic functions as they exhibited discrete periods and phase relationships between clock genes.¹²

Three years later, Sandu et al. characterized the circadian clocks in rat skin and dermal fibroblasts. They found that skin has a self-sustaining circadian clock that experiences age-dependent alterations, and that dermal fibroblasts manifest circadian rhythms that can be modulated by endogenous (e.g., melatonin) and exogenous (e.g., temperature) influences.¹³

In 2019, Park et al. demonstrated that the diurnal expression of the gene TIMP3, which is thought to evince a circadian rhythm in synchronized human keratinocytes, experiences disruptions in such rhythms by UVB exposure. The inflammation that results can be blocked, they argued, by recovering the circadian expression of TIMP3 using synthetic TIMP3 peptides or bioactive natural ingredients, such as green tea extracts.⁶

Conclusion

Circadian rhythms and the biological clocks by which most cells, including skin and hair cells, regulate themselves represent a ripe and fascinating area of research. Applying evidence in this realm to skin care has been occurring over time and is likely to enhance our practice even more as we continue to elucidate the behavior of cutaneous cells based on the solar day. Based on this information, my recommendations are to use antioxidants and protective products in the morning, and use DNA repair enzymes, retinoids, and other repair products at night.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Revance, Evolus, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions, a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at [email protected].

References

1. Dong K et al. Int J Mol Sci. 2020 Jan 3. doi: 10.3390/ijms21010326.

2. Dong K et al. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2019 Dec;41(6):558-62.

3. Lyons AB et al. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2019 Sep;12(9):42-5.

4. Wu G et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Nov 27;115(48):12313-8.

5. Vaughn AR et al. Pediatr Dermatol. 2018 Jan;35(1):152-7.

6. Park S et al. Int J Mol Sci. 2019 Feb 16. doi: 10.3390/ijms20040862.

7. Sherratt MJ et al. Matrix Biol. 2019 Nov;84:97-110.

8. Luber AJ et al. J Drugs Dermatol. 2014 Feb;13(2):130-4.

9. Le Fur I et al. J Invest Dermatol. 2001 Sep;117(3):718-24.

10. Kawara S et al. J Invest Dermatol. 2002 Dec;119(6):1220-3.

11. Spörl F et al. J Invest Dermatol. 2011 Feb;131(2):338-48.

12. Sandu C et al. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2012 Oct;69(19):3329-39.

13. Sandu C et al. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2015 Jun;72(11):2237-48.

The majority of human cells, including skin and hair cells, keep their own time; that is, they manifest autonomous clocks and the genes that regulate their functioning.¹ During the day, one primary function of the skin is protection; at night, repairing any damage (particularly DNA impairment) incurred during the day prevails.^2-4 These activities are driven through circadian rhythms using clock genes that exist in all cutaneous cells.² Important cutaneous functions such as blood flow, transepidermal water loss, and capacitance are affected by circadian rhythms.⁵ Hydration and inflammation are also among the several functions pertaining to epidermal homeostasis affected by circadian rhythms.⁶ In addition, some collagens and extracellular matrix proteases are diurnally regulated, and approximately 10% of the transcriptome, including the extracellular matrix, is thought to be controlled by circadian rhythms.⁷

Emerging research on the circadian rhythms displayed in the skin yield implications related to skin care. Cutaneous cell migration and proliferation, wound healing, and tissue vulnerability to harm from UV exposure, oxidative stress, and protease activity, for example, are affected by circadian rhythms, Sherratt et al. noted in suggesting that chronotherapy presents promise for enhancing skin therapy.⁷ Indeed, recent research has led to the understanding that cutaneous aging, cellular repair, optimal timing for drug delivery to the skin, and skin cancer development are all affected by the chronobiological functioning of the skin.⁸

We have known for several years that certain types of products should be used at different times of the day. For instance, antioxidants should be used in the morning to protect skin from sun exposure and retinols should be used in the evening because of its induction of light sensitivity. The remainder of this column focuses on research in the last 2 decades that reinforces the notion of circadian rhythms working in the skin, and may alter how we view the timing of skin care. Next month’s column, part two on the circadian rhythms of the skin, will address recent clinical trials and the implications for timing treatments for certain cutaneous conditions.
 

Emerging data on the circadian rhythms of the skin

In 2001, Le Fur et al. studied the cutaneous circadian rhythms in the facial and forearm skin of eight healthy White women during a 48-hour period. They were able to detect such rhythms in facial sebum excretion, transepidermal water loss (TEWL) in the face and forearm, pH in the face, forearm skin temperature, and forearm capacitance using cosinor or analysis of variance methods. The investigators also observed 8- and 12-hour rhythms in TEWL in both areas, and 12 hours for forearm skin temperature. They verified that such rhythms could be measured and that they vary between skin sites. In addition, they were the first to show that ultradian and/or component rhythms can also be found in TEWL, sebum excretion, and skin temperature.⁹

A year later, Kawara et al. showed that mRNA of the circadian clock genes Per1, Clock, and bmal1/mop3 are expressed in normal human-cultured keratinocytes and that low-dose UVB down-regulates these genes and changes their express in keratinocyte cell cultures. They concluded that UV targeting of keratinocytes could alter circadian rhythms.¹⁰

In 2011, Spörl and colleagues characterized an in vitro functional cell autonomous circadian clock in adult human low calcium temperature keratinocytes, demonstrating that the molecular composition of the keratinocyte clock was comparable with peripheral tissue clocks. Notably, they observed that temperature acts as a robust time cue for epidermal traits, such as cholesterol homeostasis and differentiation.¹¹

The next year, Sandu et al. investigated the kinetics of clock gene expression in epidermal and dermal cells collected from the same donor and compared their characteristics. They were able to reveal the presence of functional circadian machinery in primary cultures of fibroblasts, keratinocytes, and melanocytes, with oscillators identified in all skin cell types and thought to be involved in spurring cutaneous rhythmic functions as they exhibited discrete periods and phase relationships between clock genes.¹²

Three years later, Sandu et al. characterized the circadian clocks in rat skin and dermal fibroblasts. They found that skin has a self-sustaining circadian clock that experiences age-dependent alterations, and that dermal fibroblasts manifest circadian rhythms that can be modulated by endogenous (e.g., melatonin) and exogenous (e.g., temperature) influences.¹³

In 2019, Park et al. demonstrated that the diurnal expression of the gene TIMP3, which is thought to evince a circadian rhythm in synchronized human keratinocytes, experiences disruptions in such rhythms by UVB exposure. The inflammation that results can be blocked, they argued, by recovering the circadian expression of TIMP3 using synthetic TIMP3 peptides or bioactive natural ingredients, such as green tea extracts.⁶

Conclusion

Circadian rhythms and the biological clocks by which most cells, including skin and hair cells, regulate themselves represent a ripe and fascinating area of research. Applying evidence in this realm to skin care has been occurring over time and is likely to enhance our practice even more as we continue to elucidate the behavior of cutaneous cells based on the solar day. Based on this information, my recommendations are to use antioxidants and protective products in the morning, and use DNA repair enzymes, retinoids, and other repair products at night.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Revance, Evolus, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions, a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at [email protected].

References

1. Dong K et al. Int J Mol Sci. 2020 Jan 3. doi: 10.3390/ijms21010326.

2. Dong K et al. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2019 Dec;41(6):558-62.

3. Lyons AB et al. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2019 Sep;12(9):42-5.

4. Wu G et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018 Nov 27;115(48):12313-8.

5. Vaughn AR et al. Pediatr Dermatol. 2018 Jan;35(1):152-7.

6. Park S et al. Int J Mol Sci. 2019 Feb 16. doi: 10.3390/ijms20040862.

7. Sherratt MJ et al. Matrix Biol. 2019 Nov;84:97-110.

8. Luber AJ et al. J Drugs Dermatol. 2014 Feb;13(2):130-4.

9. Le Fur I et al. J Invest Dermatol. 2001 Sep;117(3):718-24.

10. Kawara S et al. J Invest Dermatol. 2002 Dec;119(6):1220-3.

11. Spörl F et al. J Invest Dermatol. 2011 Feb;131(2):338-48.

12. Sandu C et al. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2012 Oct;69(19):3329-39.

13. Sandu C et al. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2015 Jun;72(11):2237-48.

Vitamin D deficiency on admission to hospital was associated with a 3.7-fold increase in the odds of dying from COVID-19, according to an observational study looking back at data from the first wave of the pandemic.

Nearly 60% of patients with COVID-19 were vitamin D deficient upon hospitalization, with men in the advanced stages of COVID-19 pneumonia showing the greatest deficit.

Importantly, the results were independent of comorbidities known to be affected by vitamin D deficiency, wrote the authors, led by Dieter De Smet, MD, from AZ Delta General Hospital, Roeselare, Belgium.

“[The findings] highlight the need for randomized, controlled trials specifically targeting vitamin D–deficient patients at intake, and make a call for general avoidance of vitamin D deficiency as a safe and inexpensive possible mitigation of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic,” Dr. De Smet and colleagues wrote in their article, published online Nov. 25 in the American Journal of Clinical Pathology.

A search of ClinicalTrials.gov reveals there are currently close to 40 ongoing intervention trials with vitamin D in COVID-19 around the world for varying purposes, including prevention, and varying forms of treatment.
 

Consider vitamin D to prevent COVID-19 infection

With regard to the potential role in prevention, “Numerous observational studies have shown that low vitamin D levels are a major predictor for poor COVID outcomes,” noted Jacob Teitelbaum, MD, an internist who specializes in treating chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia who also has an interest in COVID-19.

“This study shows how severe a problem this is,” Dr. Teitelbaum said in an interview. “A 3.7-fold increase in death rate if someone’s vitamin D level was below 20 [ng/mL] is staggering. It is arguably one of the most important risk factors to consider.”

“What is not clear is whether vitamin D levels are acting as an acute-phase reactant, dropping because of the infection, with larger drops indicating more severe disease, or whether vitamin D deficiency is causing worse outcomes,” added Dr. Teitelbaum, who is director of the Center for Effective CFIDS/Fibromyalgia Therapies, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii.

Also asked to comment, Andrea Giustina, MD, president of the European Society of Endocrinology, said: “The paper by De Smet et al confirms what we already hypothesized in BMJ last March: that patients with low vitamin D levels are at high risk of hospitalization for COVID-19 and developing severe and lethal disease. This is likely due to the loss in the protective action of vitamin D on the immune system and against the SARS-CoV-2–induced cytokine storm.”

He said it is particularly interesting that the authors of the new study had reported more prevalent vitamin D deficiency among men than women, most likely because women are more often treated with vitamin D for osteoporosis.

The new study should prompt all clinicians and health authorities to seriously consider vitamin D supplementation as an additional tool in the fight against COVID-19, particularly for the prevention of infection in those at high risk of both COVID-19 and hypovitaminosis D, such the elderly, urged Dr. Giustina, of San Raffaele Vita-Salute University, Milan.
 

Results adjusted for multiple confounders

Dr. De Smet and colleagues looked at serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) levels in 186 patients hospitalized for severe COVID-19 infection as a function of radiologic stage of COVID-19 pneumonia as well as the association between vitamin D status on admission and COVID-19 mortality.

Cognizant of the potential for confounding by multiple factors, they adjusted for age, sex, and known vitamin D–affected comorbidities such as diabetes, chronic lung disease, and coronary artery disease.

Patients were hospitalized from March 1 to April 7, 2020 (the peak of the first wave of the pandemic) at their institution, AZ Delta General Hospital, a tertiary network hospital.

The mean age of patients was 69 years, 41% were women, and 59% had coronary artery disease. Upon admission to hospital, median vitamin D level was 18 ng/mL (women, 20.7 ng/mL; men, 17.6 ng/mL).

A remarkably high percentage (59%, 109/186) of patients with COVID-19 were vitamin D deficient (25[OH]D <20 ng/mL) when admitted (47% of women and 67% of men), wrote the authors.

“What surprises me,” said Dr. Teitelbaum, is that almost 60% “of these patients had 25(OH)D under 20 ng/mL but most clinicians consider under 50 to be low.”

All patients had a chest CT scan to determine the radiologic stage of COVID-19 pneumonia and serum vitamin D measurement on admission. Radiologic stage of pneumonia was used as a proxy for immunologic phase of COVID-19.
 

Vitamin D deficiency correlated with worsening pneumonia

Among men, rates of vitamin D deficiency increased with advancing disease, with rates of 55% in stage 1, 67% in stage 2, and up to 74% in stage 3 pneumonia.

There is therefore “a clear correlation between 25(OH)D level and temporal stages of viral pneumonia, particularly in male patients,” the authors wrote.

“Vitamin D dampens excessive inflammation,” said Dr. Teitelbaum. “In these patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome, the immune system has gone wild.”

“The study was carried out in Belgium, so there’s less sunlight there than some other places, but even here in Hawaii, with plenty of sunshine, we have vitamin D deficiency,” he added.

“More studies are needed, but I think there are enough data to suggest a multivitamin should be used to aid prophylaxis, and this is reflected in [some] infectious disease recommendations,” he noted.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Vitamin D deficiency on admission to hospital was associated with a 3.7-fold increase in the odds of dying from COVID-19, according to an observational study looking back at data from the first wave of the pandemic.

Nearly 60% of patients with COVID-19 were vitamin D deficient upon hospitalization, with men in the advanced stages of COVID-19 pneumonia showing the greatest deficit.

Importantly, the results were independent of comorbidities known to be affected by vitamin D deficiency, wrote the authors, led by Dieter De Smet, MD, from AZ Delta General Hospital, Roeselare, Belgium.

“[The findings] highlight the need for randomized, controlled trials specifically targeting vitamin D–deficient patients at intake, and make a call for general avoidance of vitamin D deficiency as a safe and inexpensive possible mitigation of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic,” Dr. De Smet and colleagues wrote in their article, published online Nov. 25 in the American Journal of Clinical Pathology.

A search of ClinicalTrials.gov reveals there are currently close to 40 ongoing intervention trials with vitamin D in COVID-19 around the world for varying purposes, including prevention, and varying forms of treatment.
 

Consider vitamin D to prevent COVID-19 infection

With regard to the potential role in prevention, “Numerous observational studies have shown that low vitamin D levels are a major predictor for poor COVID outcomes,” noted Jacob Teitelbaum, MD, an internist who specializes in treating chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia who also has an interest in COVID-19.

“This study shows how severe a problem this is,” Dr. Teitelbaum said in an interview. “A 3.7-fold increase in death rate if someone’s vitamin D level was below 20 [ng/mL] is staggering. It is arguably one of the most important risk factors to consider.”

“What is not clear is whether vitamin D levels are acting as an acute-phase reactant, dropping because of the infection, with larger drops indicating more severe disease, or whether vitamin D deficiency is causing worse outcomes,” added Dr. Teitelbaum, who is director of the Center for Effective CFIDS/Fibromyalgia Therapies, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii.

Also asked to comment, Andrea Giustina, MD, president of the European Society of Endocrinology, said: “The paper by De Smet et al confirms what we already hypothesized in BMJ last March: that patients with low vitamin D levels are at high risk of hospitalization for COVID-19 and developing severe and lethal disease. This is likely due to the loss in the protective action of vitamin D on the immune system and against the SARS-CoV-2–induced cytokine storm.”

He said it is particularly interesting that the authors of the new study had reported more prevalent vitamin D deficiency among men than women, most likely because women are more often treated with vitamin D for osteoporosis.

The new study should prompt all clinicians and health authorities to seriously consider vitamin D supplementation as an additional tool in the fight against COVID-19, particularly for the prevention of infection in those at high risk of both COVID-19 and hypovitaminosis D, such the elderly, urged Dr. Giustina, of San Raffaele Vita-Salute University, Milan.
 

Results adjusted for multiple confounders

Dr. De Smet and colleagues looked at serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) levels in 186 patients hospitalized for severe COVID-19 infection as a function of radiologic stage of COVID-19 pneumonia as well as the association between vitamin D status on admission and COVID-19 mortality.

Cognizant of the potential for confounding by multiple factors, they adjusted for age, sex, and known vitamin D–affected comorbidities such as diabetes, chronic lung disease, and coronary artery disease.

Patients were hospitalized from March 1 to April 7, 2020 (the peak of the first wave of the pandemic) at their institution, AZ Delta General Hospital, a tertiary network hospital.

The mean age of patients was 69 years, 41% were women, and 59% had coronary artery disease. Upon admission to hospital, median vitamin D level was 18 ng/mL (women, 20.7 ng/mL; men, 17.6 ng/mL).

A remarkably high percentage (59%, 109/186) of patients with COVID-19 were vitamin D deficient (25[OH]D <20 ng/mL) when admitted (47% of women and 67% of men), wrote the authors.

“What surprises me,” said Dr. Teitelbaum, is that almost 60% “of these patients had 25(OH)D under 20 ng/mL but most clinicians consider under 50 to be low.”

All patients had a chest CT scan to determine the radiologic stage of COVID-19 pneumonia and serum vitamin D measurement on admission. Radiologic stage of pneumonia was used as a proxy for immunologic phase of COVID-19.
 

Vitamin D deficiency correlated with worsening pneumonia

Among men, rates of vitamin D deficiency increased with advancing disease, with rates of 55% in stage 1, 67% in stage 2, and up to 74% in stage 3 pneumonia.

There is therefore “a clear correlation between 25(OH)D level and temporal stages of viral pneumonia, particularly in male patients,” the authors wrote.

“Vitamin D dampens excessive inflammation,” said Dr. Teitelbaum. “In these patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome, the immune system has gone wild.”

“The study was carried out in Belgium, so there’s less sunlight there than some other places, but even here in Hawaii, with plenty of sunshine, we have vitamin D deficiency,” he added.

“More studies are needed, but I think there are enough data to suggest a multivitamin should be used to aid prophylaxis, and this is reflected in [some] infectious disease recommendations,” he noted.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Vitamin D deficiency on admission to hospital was associated with a 3.7-fold increase in the odds of dying from COVID-19, according to an observational study looking back at data from the first wave of the pandemic.

Nearly 60% of patients with COVID-19 were vitamin D deficient upon hospitalization, with men in the advanced stages of COVID-19 pneumonia showing the greatest deficit.

Importantly, the results were independent of comorbidities known to be affected by vitamin D deficiency, wrote the authors, led by Dieter De Smet, MD, from AZ Delta General Hospital, Roeselare, Belgium.

“[The findings] highlight the need for randomized, controlled trials specifically targeting vitamin D–deficient patients at intake, and make a call for general avoidance of vitamin D deficiency as a safe and inexpensive possible mitigation of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic,” Dr. De Smet and colleagues wrote in their article, published online Nov. 25 in the American Journal of Clinical Pathology.

A search of ClinicalTrials.gov reveals there are currently close to 40 ongoing intervention trials with vitamin D in COVID-19 around the world for varying purposes, including prevention, and varying forms of treatment.
 

Consider vitamin D to prevent COVID-19 infection

With regard to the potential role in prevention, “Numerous observational studies have shown that low vitamin D levels are a major predictor for poor COVID outcomes,” noted Jacob Teitelbaum, MD, an internist who specializes in treating chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia who also has an interest in COVID-19.

“This study shows how severe a problem this is,” Dr. Teitelbaum said in an interview. “A 3.7-fold increase in death rate if someone’s vitamin D level was below 20 [ng/mL] is staggering. It is arguably one of the most important risk factors to consider.”

“What is not clear is whether vitamin D levels are acting as an acute-phase reactant, dropping because of the infection, with larger drops indicating more severe disease, or whether vitamin D deficiency is causing worse outcomes,” added Dr. Teitelbaum, who is director of the Center for Effective CFIDS/Fibromyalgia Therapies, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii.

Also asked to comment, Andrea Giustina, MD, president of the European Society of Endocrinology, said: “The paper by De Smet et al confirms what we already hypothesized in BMJ last March: that patients with low vitamin D levels are at high risk of hospitalization for COVID-19 and developing severe and lethal disease. This is likely due to the loss in the protective action of vitamin D on the immune system and against the SARS-CoV-2–induced cytokine storm.”

He said it is particularly interesting that the authors of the new study had reported more prevalent vitamin D deficiency among men than women, most likely because women are more often treated with vitamin D for osteoporosis.

The new study should prompt all clinicians and health authorities to seriously consider vitamin D supplementation as an additional tool in the fight against COVID-19, particularly for the prevention of infection in those at high risk of both COVID-19 and hypovitaminosis D, such the elderly, urged Dr. Giustina, of San Raffaele Vita-Salute University, Milan.
 

Results adjusted for multiple confounders

Dr. De Smet and colleagues looked at serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) levels in 186 patients hospitalized for severe COVID-19 infection as a function of radiologic stage of COVID-19 pneumonia as well as the association between vitamin D status on admission and COVID-19 mortality.

Cognizant of the potential for confounding by multiple factors, they adjusted for age, sex, and known vitamin D–affected comorbidities such as diabetes, chronic lung disease, and coronary artery disease.

Patients were hospitalized from March 1 to April 7, 2020 (the peak of the first wave of the pandemic) at their institution, AZ Delta General Hospital, a tertiary network hospital.

The mean age of patients was 69 years, 41% were women, and 59% had coronary artery disease. Upon admission to hospital, median vitamin D level was 18 ng/mL (women, 20.7 ng/mL; men, 17.6 ng/mL).

A remarkably high percentage (59%, 109/186) of patients with COVID-19 were vitamin D deficient (25[OH]D <20 ng/mL) when admitted (47% of women and 67% of men), wrote the authors.

“What surprises me,” said Dr. Teitelbaum, is that almost 60% “of these patients had 25(OH)D under 20 ng/mL but most clinicians consider under 50 to be low.”

All patients had a chest CT scan to determine the radiologic stage of COVID-19 pneumonia and serum vitamin D measurement on admission. Radiologic stage of pneumonia was used as a proxy for immunologic phase of COVID-19.
 

Vitamin D deficiency correlated with worsening pneumonia

Among men, rates of vitamin D deficiency increased with advancing disease, with rates of 55% in stage 1, 67% in stage 2, and up to 74% in stage 3 pneumonia.

There is therefore “a clear correlation between 25(OH)D level and temporal stages of viral pneumonia, particularly in male patients,” the authors wrote.

“Vitamin D dampens excessive inflammation,” said Dr. Teitelbaum. “In these patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome, the immune system has gone wild.”

“The study was carried out in Belgium, so there’s less sunlight there than some other places, but even here in Hawaii, with plenty of sunshine, we have vitamin D deficiency,” he added.

“More studies are needed, but I think there are enough data to suggest a multivitamin should be used to aid prophylaxis, and this is reflected in [some] infectious disease recommendations,” he noted.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.